Procedural Error By Law Enforcement Means Restraining Order On Kim Dotcom 'Null And Void'

from the oops dept

Mon, Mar 19th 2012 5:34am — Mike Masnick

We've already seen that the claims made by law enforcement in the indictment against Megaupload has raised significant legal questions, as they seemed to assume all sorts of things not necessarily factually-based. Part of that overreach resulted in a New Zealand judge granting Kim Dotcom bail despite US authorities insisting that the court keep him locked up. Now things are getting even worse, as a court has declared the restraining order issued in the case as "null and void" and having "no legal effect" after law enforcement admitted to making a significant series of procedural errors. The end result may mean that everything seized from Dotcom -- including his money, cars and other goods... may need to be returned.

The police apparently realized this and tried to apply for the proper restraining order after the fact, explaining to the judge that they had made five specific errors in the initial application. The judge is now figuring out what to do and whether or not this means that the government needs to return Dotcom's property. Of course, there's a good chance that the judge will allow the government to continue to hold the property and admit merely that "mistakes were made" and that they've now been corrected. However, given how many mistakes we've already seen in this case -- and the apparent carelessness with which so much of it happened -- it leads you to wonder how many other "errors" or shortcuts law enforcement in both New Zealand and the US took in bringing this case forward.

It's no secret that Dotcom's larger-than-life persona has been an easy target in the attacks on Megaupload, but it's beginning to appear that law enforcement assumed that just because the guy is an obnoxious show-off with a criminal past that it didn't need to actually follow all the rules in bringing a case against him this time. That's not how the judicial system is supposed to work.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: kim dotcom, new zealand, procedural errors, restraining order
Companies: megaupload

89 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:08am

The plan may never have been to actually convict him, or even try him. It may instead have been to simply get MegaUpload taken down and use that to scare the other cyberlockers into being a lot less useful. Anything beyond that would've been icing on the cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  The plan was not to actually convict him, it was to get megaupload taken down ON THE DAY AFTER SOPA was defeated by a grass roots uprising of the population.
  
  SOPA supporters were thinking: That will show those pipsqueaks what we think of democracy! So there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:08am

Holy hell, are the pirates the only ones that are competent at their jobs anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:42am
  
  Re:
  That presumes that DotCom is a pirate. So far, there just isn't any evidence beyond circumstantial evidence to support that sort of conclusion.
  
  Is it likely that people used his service to break the law? Yes. But there is no proof he was in on it, and people use telephones and ISPs to break the law in exactly the same way, and the law recognizes that the people actually breaking the law should be held responsible, not the tool used to do so, so long as the tool has legitimate uses as well.
  
  If MegaUpload can be considered a criminal enterprise despite legal uses, then so can any phone company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think the intent was that pirates who rip dvds and make them available do it well, and who else really provides competent service anymore? Not that DotCom was a pirate. Just an interpretation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zos (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  yes. cause we're doing it for the love :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:09am

Double Standard
If you run a giant ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff, you're granted bail and none of your assists are initially seized. Billions of real dollars lost by regular people, no problem. Billions of imaginary dollars lost by Hollywood, SEIZE EVERYTHING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:00am
  
  Re: Double Standard
  Same with the banks...
  
  Wreck the economy and cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in bailouts to prop you up? No problem, people get mad, no justice happens to the banks, everyone moves on.
  
  Get hit with copyright infringement? You're ruining everything!!
  
  Funny thing is, the last time there was a major bank bailout in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan ordered all bankers involved in the crisis arrested and their assets seized.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skeptical Cynic (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:10am
    
    Re: Re: Double Standard
    So very true. Watch the movie Inside Job. Liberal bend but still provides good information about the 2008 financial crisis. Why has there not been a single arrest or true accounting for the billions we the tax payer have to pay for?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
      "Why has there not been a single arrest or true accounting for the billions we the tax payer have to pay for?"
      
      Because of Conservatives and Republicans who believe it's just the way the "free market" should work...without regulations or laws!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        Not that the Democrats have done any better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        "Not that the Democrats have done any better."
        
        Haven't seen a repeat of 2007 yet, boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        You ever hear of something called conformation bias? You should probably look it up since it fits your statement quite well.
        
        As for who's at fault for the crisis it is both sides as this wasn't something that came out from a couple years worth of political movement it took at least a decade to build up and most of the bills which helped to cause this were bipartisan in nature.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        "...this wasn't something that came out from a couple years worth of political movement it took at least a decade to build up and most of the bills which helped to cause this were bipartisan in nature..."
        
        ...with primarily Republican Presidents and majorities in both parts of Congress, boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        Government just gets in the way of our sacred job creators' abilities to turn a profit regardless of the effects on the economy. If the poor people wanted good paying jobs they should have just been born rich. The fact that they didn't choose to be born to rich parents is just proof that they're not worthy of our concern!
        
        /s
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        Effects caused by deregulation are, by definition, not effects from a free market system. Quite the opposite in fact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Eponymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
      I forget where I first saw a possible explanation for this, but it goes something like this: Our government isn't prosecuting those involved in this financial crisis for they, the institutions that is, are our banks and so our government doesn't want to weaken its stake in global finance by attacking its own. Basically the government is hedging that its better to enable the banks bad behavior by leaving them to operate as if they did no wrong then to take them down for their crimes and thus allow others, most likely foreign banks, to then enter the now vacant space and rise to prominence. This is our country, and the western world too, shielding its own interests over the interests of justice which I believe to be a reasonable explanation for this lack of prosecution.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Violated (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        Nice theory but there were three factors in this sub-prime housing market collapse.
        
        First is that anyone who has read the history of the Great Depression would well understand why the Government helped to save they banks. They are all connected with loans an debts and to let them collapse causes a chain reaction across the entire market until hundreds are no more.
        
        Second is that Congress is directly responsible for making an already bad situation into a disaster. During boom time they made a law that forced banks to provide mortgages to risky customers under the idea that "every American should have the right to own a home"
        
        Then we have the fuse that kicked this all off in mortgage payments going up while house prices fell. Soon home owners realised that their mortgage had a higher value than what their house was worth. So many just said screw it and gave the bank their house to then find better value in a cheap market.
        
        Last of all when boom time ends and recession starts then this is often when people load up in debt with loans and credit cards. So they had to restrict their spending causing further market problems, some defaulted causing more bank problems, then the whole loan market got so bad that loans and mortgages dried up.
        
        Nothing matters more to a healthy economy than the smooth flow of money and life sucks when that money slows down or stops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        "During boom time they made a law that forced banks to provide mortgages to risky customers under the idea that "every American should have the right to own a home""
        
        Congress didn't "force" anything.
        They DID de-regulate to a ridiculous degree allowing greedy bankers to approve mortgages they should never have approved in order to get huge bonuses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        It helps that the banks have lobbied Obama's administration for years behind the scenes to get the money with no strings attached. Now they're bilking the US taxpayer for billions in public view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard
        I think you can fire and replace bankers without destroying the bank.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:16am

You have to read the story a little further to understand that "null and void" is a bit of a reach. The law of New Zealand allows for "good faith" errors, and unlike the US, doesn't suddenly spring a defendant or remove the intended action because someone used the wrong form or didn't use the right font in filling it out.

The intent was good, the filing was less so - on the basis of what I have read in various places over the weekend, it is likely that the judge will let it stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:19am
  
  Re:
  Are there good faith errors when shootings are involved? Good faith deaths in a police raid if they were really really sure some wrong doing was going on? This seems ripe for abuse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, I didn't talk about death. The issue is one of paperwork, nothing more. No dead bodies.
    
    Part of the deal is that even if the original order is called null and void, the courts would very likely grant the next request directly. So the process of returning all the goods only to seize them back 10 minutes later won't do anyone any good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It isn't an issue of accidentally filing the incorrect paperwork, though. It is a matter of willfully using the wrong process and type of seizure in order to enact the seizure more quickly, and to NOT allow Dotcom to mount a defense. That is WILLFUL negligence in order to HARM a defendant and strip them of their rights.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 24 Mar 2012 @ 4:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        which is hardly good faith, now, is it?
        so, if the judge agrees with you (and really, they should) then that's the end of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:40am
  
  Re:
  @ #4
  
  anyone doing this job should know exactly what forms they need to fill in, how they need to fill them in and what font and ink colour to use. i think the 'good faith errors' you speak of do not include wrong charges etc which seem to be the case here.
  
  also, how many 'good faith errors' would anyone else be allowed to make? if an individual was charging law enforcement or entertainment industries for example with wrong doing i guess it would be, like, NONE! the slightest error would mean lawyers calling for an immediate dropping of all charges and return of all property, both physical and digital.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  The problem is that if the court order was null and void at the moment it was issued, then any seizures were made without the legal shield of a court order. Individuals carrying it out are probably not liable since they were told the order was valid and acted in good faith.
  
  But the fact remains that someone burgled his house of over a million dollars worth of property.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:11am
  
  Re:
  "The law of New Zealand allows for "good faith" errors, and unlike the US, doesn't suddenly spring a defendant or remove the intended action because someone used the wrong form or didn't use the right font in filling it out."
  
  "The right font"?
  I hope when you're arrested, not using the "right font" will get you off, boy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  "The law of New Zealand allows for "good faith" errors, and unlike the US, doesn't suddenly spring a defendant or remove the intended action because someone used the wrong form or didn't use the right font in filling it out."
  
  Then the "law" in New Zealand is nothing of the kind.
  If supposedly-trained police and prosecutors can't follow their own rules, who should?
  Who defines what "good faith" is in these matters?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 11:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    If it did allow for it then law enforcement would define "good faith" then, after the fact, try to convince a judge of that without a "null and void" ruling entering into it.
    
    It will be very interesting to see what sort of patience the judge has for all the errors, overreach and mistakes that have already happened when it comes time to rule on whether or not all DotCom's property be returned.
    
    He's an obnoxious jerk and show off but neither of those are crimes or even violate any civil law. If they did folks like The Donald would have been in prison years ago!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:47am

Of course, there's a good chance that the judge will allow the government to continue to hold the property and admit merely that "mistakes were made" and that they've now been corrected.

So then... why doesn't he get the same chance? To just say that he 'made mistakes' - correct them, and all is happy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  Because he angered the MPAA and RIAA, why else?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  "So then... why doesn't he get the same chance? To just say that he 'made mistakes' - correct them, and all is happy?"
  
  Let's not be silly here. The question is one of intent, obviously. If some underpaid government nobody fills out the paperwork incorrectly or in the wrong order, but everything factually in the filing is correct, the court can and should (if I understand the law correctly) not cut everything loose and just apply the new paperwork. Kim Dot Com is an obvious blowhard idiot whose intent was to make money doing something he knew others would try to stop.
  
  Now, I'm not saying I agree with illegality of the claims, and the reason you strive to get the fucking paperwork correct is to avoid even the appearance of lax work on the actual FACTS of the case, but the two parties are likely not equal in intent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...but the two parties are likely not equal in intent.
    
    Unequal justice?
    What a novel concept!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:47am

I believe that if Kim Dot Com is allowed to present A proper legal defense he will be acquitted of all charges.
I also believe that the charges were a reactionary result of the PIPA/SOPA loss by a reactionary authoritarian governmental bureaucracy.

In many ways this is like Eric Holders brainwashing speech against firearms and it's link to Fast and Furious/Gunwalking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:00am
  
  Re:
  How do you account for the fact that the investigation had been going on since before those laws were even introduced?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh please, that's just what they say. Where's the proof of that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The wiretaps of a foriegn corporation entered into the record. These include but are not limited to Skype communications and internal and external emails. They seem to have been provided by someone who was a part of Mega in return for not being charged.
      
      Sort of like how the FBI turned Sabu, and provided material support in the theft of information from StratFor. They provided the server that held the data and could have blocked its release but still allowed it to be released, costing StratFor clients time and money in having to clean up "identity" theft and unauthorized charges.
      
      I'm willing to bet they caught some underling with a tiny amount of drugs or something and used the threat of life in prison to gain assistance. Its not a crime to have someone else steal information for you I guess.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those so called wiretaps are interesting since they could be in breach of wiretap laws and privacy laws (which NZ has good ones with teeth).
        
        If this is so they cannot be used as evidence in extradition hearing since they are not lawfully made (unlike the USA where the court doesn't care where things or people come from) and the individual(s) who did them could be criminally charged under NZ law whether they are US citizens or NZ citizens, though I highly doubt any US citizens would be convicted.. See there is no Extradition treaty that the USA has with ANYONE that allows a US citizen to be extradited ANYWHERE!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which is why they are just using the US Indictment with charges that meet the NZ requirements to turn him over. The case is lacking in several key areas, mostly those that meet the NZ requirements. This case is going to be a circus.
        
        Its so awesome that everything is so wonderful in the US now we have time to focus on imaginary dollars being lost and are arresting people around the globe to bring them to the US for kangaroo court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why are you such an apologist for this guy that got rich off of piracy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because he didn't get rich off piracy. He got rich off of providing a convenient service that over 150 million people used legitimately.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because supporting a miscarriage of justice makes it easier for them to do it again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, I'm afraid Its gotten to the point where they have to PROVE their not lying to us
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:04am

Because he angered the MPAA and RIAA, why else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:05am

Hey - it ate my text!!

I was going to add to the above:

"If the RIAA and MPAA can buy politicians, why can't the general public?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 24 Mar 2012 @ 4:53am
  
  Re:
  we do. regularly. elections and taxes, ya know. they just refuse to Stay bought.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:23am

Everyone keep watching the news. The US is going to be foaming at the mouth trying to stop this.

Mr. Dotcom having access to his money and property is going to scare the crap out of UMG.
Not only will he be able to have a good defense to the trumped up charges, but it is possible he will open Mega's music platform just to spite them.

The Mega music platform was close to launch when all of this went down. Mega was going to handle sales and promotion of artists work for a flat percentage. No double, triple, quad dipping like in recording industry. Quick easy sales for consumers, quick easy accounting and payments for the artists.

And for everyone who still thinks Mega is a conspiracy, please explain why the CEO was never arrested. Mr. Dotcom was not the CEO at the time of his arrest, that position was filled by someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:34am
  
  Re:
  I hate the disappoint you, but Mr Dotcom has plenty of money, ignoring all that was seized. He doesn't need those goods to mount a defense.
  
  What he does need to mount a defense is a miracle. He is pretty much dead to rights on every count, especially the money laundering. He needs to hope for more technicalities, because his main case is pretty much sealed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Funny they searched 3 times to find money they hadn't seized and managed to find finally 1 account with under $2000 in it. And then he was granted bail, still hasn't fled the country like so many people claimed would happen.
    
    Money laundering, did you read the indictment?
    
    He was paid by advertisers, then HID that money by... *GASP* paying his hosting bills.
    So a corporation paying its bills is money laundering... lets seize every other foreign corporation then shall we?
    
    As the phrase says they can indict a ham sandwich, it does not actually mean they have a good case. It is not a slam dunk as you would like it to be, and the US can't even get him extradited yet even with the undue pressure on NZ to ignore their laws.
    
    I notice you didn't answer who the CEO of Mega is... you who can see the future should know who it is...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Who do you think was the CEO? The rapper? Nahh, that was just a distraction to try to paper some things over. It should be points out that Kim was arrested for what had happened for X number of years, not for something specifically current to this week.
      
      Considering the complicated structure that was created, and all of the deceptive overlapping companies, holding organzations, and the like, with his name all over them, it's pretty hard to get away from it all.
      
      I did some research on Mega a couple of years ago. Owned by "Monkey Limited" which is one of his favorite names for things (read up on his history). It was hiding out at a drop box "form a company in hong kong" type office.
      
      It's all Kim, all the time. He's the brains behind it, he is the master manipulator that thought he had it all figured out paying "affiliates" for uploading and selling access to copyright content. Too bad for him that it all blew up.
      
      Oh, and for the record, pre-mega, he had more than enough money to buy his way into Honk Kong (which takes more than 1 million US to do, even on the cheap). He has plenty of assets from his pre-mega days.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Assets - Then please explain why after a worldwide hunt they were unable to find these fabled assets?
        
        The Charges - Leaving out his prior acts, please list real reasons. Everyone likes to talk about his past using it to create justification for him getting screwed today. He was tried on these charges and those cases are closed. Shall we judge you by everything you ever did as a child? Every stupid thing you ever did should be required reading before people can assess unrelated things you might do in your life?
        
        Mega - So making a large corporation is a bad thing. Check.
        Having overlapping business interests is a bad thing. Check. Lets raid Universal shall we?
        As they were nearly all branded Mega, its really hard to make the argument they were hidden.
        
        SwizzBeats is the CEO of Mega. This happened prior to this case coming out. The lawsuits against UMG still are not done, but delayed due to UMG's shady business practices.
        
        Shortly after SOPA and PIPA went pop, UMG illegally claiming copyright over material they CLEARLY did not own, and the announcement of Mega directly challenging legacy players there was this sudden indictment. The claims made in the indictment are fantasy based.
        They found and removed child porn, but not copyrighted material.
        There are laws against Child Porn that require actions, there is no law for copyright working the same way. The checking for CP was done automatically, being compared to known files. But it was framed as if they were ignoring the law.
        A Hong Kong based company had a DMCA process in place despite not having to follow US law, but they didn't do it how the legacy players wanted it done - despite those demands being more than required by law.
        Mega paid people for uploading popular content. They should have spied on their users to protect the interests of others at their own expense... seriously?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The assets: They were looking for assets related to the alledged crimes, not monies or accounts already held outside of that.
        
        The charges: it's a little complicated, but the basic concept is (a) having a file upload site full of copyright material, (b) setting up an affiliate programs, and (c) making sure it's your own companies that are the main affiliates. Basically, selling access to copyright material is a crime, and using a structure to move the money from the center out to other companies is laundering money.
        
        I don't judge him because he is a devious shit that has gotten in trouble more than once trying to tweak the nose of the system, I just think it doesn't look good for him as a result.
        
        "SwizzBeats is the CEO of Mega. "
        
        Subject of debate, apparently nothing was ever signed. He wasn't the CEO at the time the crimes are alleged to have happened, and clearly shows no actual control over any of the companies (at the time).
        
        As for the DMCA process, they were apparently being quite dishonest. In order to speed uploads, they wouldn't bother to force people to upload a second or third of 100th copy of something, they would just link to an existing copy. But when the got DMCA notices for one URL, they didn't take down the main files or any other links.
        
        In a country like Hong Kong that has no DMCA system, the mere presence of the copyrighted material is enough to show copyright violation. You don't have to go all the extra DMCA steps. I would say that the studios tried hard to work with Mega to stop piracy, but it is clear now that Mega only makes money (and launders it out) with copyrighted material.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The assets: They were looking for assets related to the alledged crimes, not monies or accounts already held outside of that."
        
        No they were looking at everything he had access to to prove he was a flight risk from NZ.
        
        DMCA notice was for 1 link, they removed the link. Then they needed to wait for the entire process to play out, as the uploader could answer the charge etc etc. They stopped the access to the link provided like the law said. Not what they WANT it to say - that they needed to scour their entire network for anything that looked like it.
        
        The studios worked hard? Like they did with HotFile and were caught removing content they didn't own, and files they never verified belonged to them, and stuff they just decided they didn't like.
        This is what corporations are supposed to do? I just keep giving in to the media corps demands that are far and above the legal requirements?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know where you are reading the story. That is not what at all was indicated in the indictment. You need to learn more about the topic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You might need to read it without your personal opinion of Mr. Dotcom coloring the matter.
        You also might want to look at the review of the indictment that was published on Ars.
        Some points they might have to actually put up a fight about, and some of them are so bogus its funny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "DMCA notice was for 1 link, they removed the link. Then they needed to wait for the entire process to play out, as the uploader could answer the charge etc etc."
        
        The point is that their system stored only one copy of the file, even though there was multiple pointers to it. As soon as they got the DMCA notice, they should have disable access to the file, not just blocking the single link. At that point, they would know that the other links are infringing.
        
        That is only a sideline... the money laundering is the real issue.
        
        I ask again: Why are you such an apologist for this guy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point is that their system stored only one copy of the file, even though there was multiple pointers to it. As soon as they got the DMCA notice, they should have disable access to the file, not just blocking the single link. At that point, they would know that the other links are infringing.
        
        They were told about the link and they removed the link as per the DMCA notice. Any other links they could find and have removed.
        
        So why are you only acting as if this is somehow a criminal offense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point is that their system stored only one copy of the file, even though there was multiple pointers to it.
        
        Yes. So what. Lots of data storage systems do that. That simply makes technological sense.
        
        As soon as they got the DMCA notice, they should have disable access to the file, not just blocking the single link.
        
        Says who? You are requiring things that US law doesn�t. They responded to DMCA notices by disabling the offending link.
        
        At that point, they would know that the other links are infringing.
        
        How exactly would they know that? Magic 8-ball?
        
        Mega was a global website. Users in countries where filesharing is legal for personal use could be the uploaders and in that case the link they created would be perfectly legal for them and others in their country. Mega isn't required to remove it for a US based DMCA notice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " I ask again: Why are you such an apologist for this guy?"
        
        Because you and Mr Dotcom we're close and personall friends, and therefore you're in a unique position to assess his character
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    @ #24
    
    please list the evidence, not hearsay or assumptions, you have so we here understand, then make sure you pass it on to the prosecution in NZ. i would hate to see Mega get real justice rather than Hollywood justice! (sarc)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    "He is pretty much dead to rights on every count, especially the money laundering. He needs to hope for more technicalities, because his main case is pretty much sealed."
    
    You've seen the transcripts and evidence?
    Which department of New Zealand law enforcement do you work for, boy?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He's not even charged in NZ.
      He has been detained at the behest of the US to be extradited to the US to face charges.
      Funny how some of the indictment was tailored to make sure that it fell securely within the requirements for NZ to extradite.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 3:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Stop with the 'boy,' already. It makes you look childish, and reduces the impact of your own authority.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:42am

Silly AC making comment #3, Bernie Madoff committed his crimes from Wall Street, Kim DotCom committed his crimes over the Internet!

Have you seen any Wall Street bankers go to jail for for tricking millions of people into variable high interest rates loans the bankers knew they couldn't afford and then selling off the loans before they went bad? Or hear of anyone going to jail for telling their customers to invest in bad investments while simultaneously betting against that same investment without telling the customs? Exactly!

The moral here, it's perfectly ok to trick people into buying worthless assets and causing such a big mess the federal government needs to give you hundreds of billions of dollars! But the threat of possibly stealing a few bucks with the RIAA or Hollywood over the Internet, you're going to jail you immoral evil thief, it's people like you who bankrupt our economy just because you want to save a few bucks on music and movies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:14am

Pirate mike supportive of thieves stealing IP and creativity from american putting f~@K all back. This is a shame. Mega uploading is costing thousands of jobs and millions from the economy. The sooner he is found guilty the better as a warning to all the other pirate sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  "Pirate mike supportive of thieves stealing IP and creativity from american putting f~@K all back. This is a shame. Mega uploading is costing thousands of jobs and millions from the economy. The sooner he is found guilty the better as a warning to all the other pirate sites."
  
  Stop putting your fingers into electric sockets, boy.
  Your synapses are misfiring.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  "Apple supportive of thieves stealing IP and creativity from american putting f~@K all back."
  I corrected your post for accuracy, since you obviously get your news from the same source who writes these ridiculous laws to begin with.
  
  Enjoy your new found knowledge. Please use it wisely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  You know what? If the American economy falls apart because of a few songs and movies that are illegally downloaded, then the American economy doesn't deserve to exist.
  
  That includes the food, fuel, manufacturing, and other jobs that Americans work. If a few illegally downloaded movies and music can ruin farmers, ranchers, oil rig workers, airplane pilots and other people's jobs and other sectors of the economy, then perhaps the economy shouldn't exist.
  
  I honestly think that the American economy is much stronger than the MPAA and RIAA put together.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  Mega has been offline for a while now.
  Please produce records showing the economy now flush with cash.
  Please show the thousands of people now employed.
  
  I'd wait, but I'm aging and you'll never be able to do this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:47am
  
  Re:
  "putting f~@k all back".
  There is the crux of your entire nonsense argument. You assume we don't ever pay money for anything.
  I guess I'll take the Battlestar Galactica Blu-ray set I have right now and chuck it out the window, because clearly, as a self-confessed pirate, I didn't put fuck all back.
  Yeah, great argument, genius, dividing people into either customer or pirate. People can be both at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:09am
  
  Re:
  What the fuck does f-@k mean?
  You are an adult? Then type correctly and either don't use profanity or if you use it type it correctly.
  
  Yes I know trolling is hared work, but your masters will appreciate the suggestion so that you can troll harder next time, By harder I mean getting more than 1/100 .. the one point is for effort
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:08pm
  
  Re:
  Wow, did darryl fall ill and had to hire a temporary replacement?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 4:34am
  
  Re:
  Mega uploading is costing thousands of jobs and millions from the economy.
  
  http://torrentfreak.com/mpaas-bogus-piracy-statistics-are-bogus-120316/
  
  There's a video there from TED.com called "The $8 billion iPod". Watch it and repeat what you just said with a straight face =)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:15am

Hilarious that first, they try to ban him from the Internet for fear that he has funds that a SWAT-backed investigation failed to find, then they manage to do this. Consider that this operation probably took years in planning to get some charges to stick. Such folly is hardly becoming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:23am

Now this is a troll. Straight to the point. "Pirate Mike" "thieves" "stealing IP and creativity" "a shame" "costings thousand of jobs and millions from the economy" "guilty" "warning to all the other pirate sites".

You didn't even try and disguise your tired old talking points in eloquence and sophistication. Good job man. You should teach the others how to do it so we can Flag the comments quick. Either with a "LOL" or "Report" one, either works. Like this some of us can quickly gloss over them and get to the actual good comments. And by "good comments" I mean those worth reading or responding to, don't have to agree with them, but do have to be worth reading and making good points one way or another that we can discuss and debate like adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fairusefriendly (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:50am

so what happens to all the "evidence" that was illegally seized
So what happens to all the evidence that was acquired from this "illegal" seizure. Is it fruits of the poison tree or is it admissible in the case.

That a pretty big handicap if the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: so what happens to all the "evidence" that was illegally seized
  Nope, the factual part of the seizure order was correct just not the way in which it was carried out.
  
  Basically if the Magistrate/Judge states that all property is to be returned, then that same court would have a PROPER order for seizure given to it (already in the prosecutors hand just in case) where the goods would be unseized and then seized. This is highly unlikely since in NZ like AU and UK, non intentional errors that do not destroy or give misgivings to material fact can be waived, with the submitter getting a serious drilling by the court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:28pm
    
    Re: Re: so what happens to all the "evidence" that was illegally seized
    As you point out while the evidence isn't from a poison tree so it's not automatically excluded but you can bet every torrent and file sharing going out there at any given moment Dotcom's lawyers (barristers) will hammer the living daylights out of this and other real and perceived errors to prevent the extradition from ever taking place. Not to mention the failure to keep Dotcom behind bars.
    
    Even should he be ordered extradited the appeals will take years while Dotcom sits safely in NZ before he even makes it to the States if he ever does.
    
    As with NZ, Oz and the UK Canada operates in the same way but the time the judge is taking to determine whether or not the property should be returned is curious. If the procedural errors and there correction were a slam dunk what usually happens is that authorities get to keep what they took. If the order is to return the property then the police are told that they have to start all over again with a completely new application rather than the tainted one.
    
    No matter how this turns out the raid, warrant, extradition application and even the US indictment seem to be full of holes and hurried. On a wing or a prayer.
    
    This one could be very interesting. :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: so what happens to all the "evidence" that was illegally seized
      "...you can bet every torrent and file sharing going out there at any given moment.."
      or you can
      "...bet every royalty not paid to songwriters, performers, actors, actresses, screenwriters and directors due to studio 'bookkeeping'..."
      Your choice!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: so what happens to all the "evidence" that was illegally seized
        I almost misread that second choice.
        
        The artists likely make more money off the first choice. :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:54am

But i like trolling, it's fun.

Copyright and IP is hopelessly messed up and no really solutions seem to be on the horizon. More rubbishy laws and enforcement will be put in place.

When will the madness end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:55am

Here is an example.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/german-court-orders-rapidshare-to-filter -user-uploads.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  Yes and that German court ruling so violates the European Court of Justice ruling that websites cannot be forced to fit a filter at their own expense.
  
  Guess what court had the higher authority? So those German courts can make all the rulings they want but those judgements will be overturned when the case is taken to the European level.
  
  The only way around this ECJ ruling is for GEMA to pay the millions involved in adding this filter and the annual charges in keeping it updated.
  
  As GEMA won't welcome the bill then so is does that make an invalid court ruling waiting to be overturned. RapidShare will not get a filter any time soon when current take-down methods are cheaper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reverbe, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:21pm

Procedural error is another term for "we tried to do things outside of the rules and got burned for it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 24 Mar 2012 @ 5:03am
  
  Re:
  'also, no one died and we know people...'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 5:38am

Procedural error?

- Overstretching of laws. [check]
- Non-related, not applicable accusations to justify a mega operation. [check]
- Lack of evidence to support any accusation. [check]
- Abuse of power. [check]
- Overkill (use of unnecessary police power) - a pregnant wife and a few kids? [check]
- Jurisdiction overreach (disrespect to a country sovereignty). [check]
- Tons of collateral damage (millions of personal files lost). [check]

No seriously, just how much has it cost Megaupload being offline all these weeks? How much has it impacted in its credibility? (will ppl still keep their files there when it comes back?) How much stress was imposed to his wife and his kids? Procedural error? Yes, fuck you, law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 12:14pm

Mega-upload prosecution goof-ups
Seems to me with so many procedural errors in this case, it's time they just threw it all out, returned all the stuff they seized from Kim Dotcom, and allowed Mega-Upload to go back online, at least so people who have content stranded on there can recover it. Why should they punish millions of innocent users just to get at a few violators? That's like closing every street in New York City because a few taxi cabs violate the speed limit going down Broadway. No, get the violators and punish them, and leave the rest of us alone.

I see this whole Mega-Upload thing just one more indication of the rapidity of this police state mentality that will soon be imposed on all of us, unless something is done to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]