Law Professor: Megaupload Prosecution A 'Depressing Display Of Abuse Of Government Authority'
from the tell-me-about-it dept
We've written plenty about the problems with the government's case against Megaupload, but it's still interesting to see law professor Eric Goldman's rather brutal assessment of the government's case, suggesting that it's clearly a case of abuse by the government:The more we hear and see about the government's case against Megaupload, it really appears that the government was relying almost entirely on the fact that Megaupload looked bad. It's hard to deny that there were plenty of things that Kim (in particular) did that makes him appear pretty obnoxious. But being a crass showoff doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Even worse, the government's action in the case to date seem to be doing everything possible to undermine their own case as they try to railroad Megaupload. I'll admit, when I heard about the shutdown, I (perhaps naively) assumed that the government had a pretty solid case. To take down a whole site, they must have the goods. In fact, in talking to another law professor in the hours after the indictment was made public, I was cautioned that there simply must be more to the case, because what was in the indictment just didn't seem complete. Perhaps there's something hidden in the back pocket of the DOJ, but so far it seems like (former anti-piracy exec) US Attorney Neil MacBride ran an effort against Megaupload that was more focused on how it looked to his former colleagues than what the law actually says.The resulting prosecution is a depressing display of abuse of government authority. It’s hard to comprehensively catalog all of the lawless aspects of the US government’s prosecution of Megaupload, so I’ll just focus on two:
1) Trying to hold Megaupload criminally liable for its users' actions. Criminal copyright infringement requires willful infringement, a very rigorous scienter level. I discuss the implications of this high scienter requirement in more detail in my decade-old article on warez trading. Megaupload’s business choices may not have been ideal, but Megaupload has a number of strong potential defenses for its users' activities, including 512(c), lack of volitional conduct and more. Whether it actually qualified for these is irrelevant; Megaupload’s subjective belief in these defenses should destroy the willfulness requirement. Thus, the government is simply making up the law to try to hold Megaupload accountable for its users' uploading/downloading.
2) Taking Megaupload offline. Megaupload's website is analogous to a printing press that constantly published new content. Under our Constitution, the government can’t simply shut down a printing press, but that's basically what our government did when it turned Megaupload off and seized all of the assets. Not surprisingly, shutting down a printing press suppresses countless legitimate content publications by legitimate users of Megaupload. Surprisingly (shockingly, even), the government apparently doesn't care about this “collateral,” entirely foreseeable and deeply unconstitutional effect. The government's further insistence that all user data, even legitimate data, should be destroyed is even more shocking. Destroying the evidence not only screws over the legitimate users, but it may make it impossible for Megaupload to mount a proper defense. It's depressing our government isn't above such cheap tricks in its zeal to win.
The government has also been shockingly cavalier about the collateral consequences of its prosecution on the marketplace. Legitimate web hosts, and their investors, are quaking in their boots that they will be next. It doesn’t help that the content industry is circulating a “kill chart” of its next desired targets.
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: abuse, eric goldman, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thugs in suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thugs in suits
And this is not the first time Washington Politics has overstepped its bounds and done illegal and immoral actions.
Down with this Corrupted Government !
The Day is Coming when you are going to get what you deserve.
I am thinking very bad times will happen in the next ten years thanks to the Cancer called Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thugs in suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thugs in suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thugs in suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thugs in suits
The problem is not the politicians (they're the symptom). The problem is that the system itself has collapsed. We have become Rome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thugs in suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you, boy, have too little in your skull to even know what you're saying.
Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's arguing for MegaUpload, a bunch of pirates, hence he's a pirate apologist--by definition. He's trying to frame this as the big bad government wrongly going after a cute cuddly teddy bear. Give me a break. Arguing that the government won't be able to prove a "high scienter requirement" is just wishful thinking. He thinks that MegaUpload's "subjective belief in these defenses should destroy the willfulness requirement." I think a jury is likely not to believe that MegaUpload was in good faith and their willfulness is not hard to establish. The arguments about this being just like shutting down a printing press are rather specious. There's arguments either way on the First Amendment issues. Of course, we all know which way the professor feels about it--it's a constitutional nightmare! That's just one opinion--from an apologist. And good grief with the argument that not preserving the servers will destroy exculpatory evidence. That's just grasping at straws. You guys can whine and try and frame this as an innocent website being wrongfully treated, but suffice it to say that not everyone shares that opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... ...
...
just how stupid ARE you?
because either you actually believe what you're saying, proving you're about as intelligent as your average rock...
or you're a shill who somehow thinks this is an effective argument... proving you're about as intelligent as your average rock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can piracy apologist too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? And how's that working out for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently the government doesn't seem to have enough evidence to prove this point, but also he's not arguing for MegaUpload. He's arguing that the government's case is weak. There's a difference. He's not saying that MegaUpload never did anything wrong. He's saying that the government has screwed up its case against MegaUpload.
An actual pirate-apologist would be saying something to the effect of, "So MegaUpload is a bunch of pirates, so what? They can violate copyright all they want because it's okay!" I didn't see any of that in Goldman's article. I also didn't see anywhere where Goldman gushed over MegaUpload or implied they were anything close to a "a cute cuddly teddy bear."
You, like the government, apparently needs to do a better job of backing up your claims with actual evidence and not conjecture and name-calling.
"Of course, we all know which way the professor feels about it--it's a constitutional nightmare! That's just one opinion--from an apologist."
That is the definition of an ad hominem attack. Even if he were an apologist, which he is clearly not, it wouldn't necessarily make his professional opinion invalid. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please provide an argument demonstrating that the government will be able to prove "high scienter requirement." How has it been done before? What were the circumstances? How is this case the same as previous cases? How is it different? and so on...I'm certainly not going to make arguments on your behalf...that's your job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as running through case law to examine scienter--I'm sorry, but I'm too busy this afternoon to do that. Sounds like fun though. If you have something you want to share, please do--I'd like to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought conservative Masnick trolls prided themselves on their ability to reason and lay out well-thought...well, shit that's what I was hoping they would pride themselves on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which strangely hasn't stopped you from keeping various inane ad homs. How come?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While I respect the difference of opinion, I have a **huge** problem using an opinion to shut down a website. Can we agree that innocent until proven guilty should generally still apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course the presumption of innocence applies. That doesn't mean that warrants for arrest and seizure still don't issue upon showing probable cause. You guys seem to think that it's completely improper to shut down a website until after there's been a full trial on the merits and all appeals exhausted. It's ridiculous. The internet isn't special. If there's probable cause to believe that a a website is being used for criminal acts, then I don't think they can hide behind the First Amendment and say they're unseizable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think Goldman, or any of the previous posters are saying that. They are saying that when the government is going to knowingly shutdown protected First Ammendment speech along with copyright infringement, it requires a higher burden of proof than probable cause.
Since the government is so insistent on destroying evidence, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is likely they will be unable to meet that higher burden.
Of course, I don't expect you to agree with me. I am admittedly a piracy apologist, and proud of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are making that argument, but not convincingly. They point to obscenity cases that have some helpful sounding language, but they never explain how that analysis is applicable here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a losing argument, as the courts have already ruled that SOME protected free speech may be harmed or blocked when illegal speech is stopped, and that is an acceptable trade off.
The courts are very clear that they do not want a weak amount of protected speech to become wall that you can hide illegal speech behind.
It should also be pointed out that there is no simple or easy way in Mega to clearly ascertain the rights on private user files. We know looking at movie files that the rights holder has not granted distribution rights in this manner, so it's a slam dunk. What is in someone's private free locker, well, who knows?
Further, considering that many of the lockers are anonymously operated, or point to free disposible email accounts, it's difficult to figure out who really "owns" the account, and then to figure out if they really have the rights.
Quite simply, nobody has been able to explain why 50 million people were using this site, why 45 million of them never uploaded a single file, and why it was one of the webs most popular sites. I cannot imagine any sane person suggesting that free file hosting for your private and personal files is something that would generate that level of traffic.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like a duck... somewhere along the line, even a court of law would agree that it appears to be a duck - no matter what type of blind you try to hide it behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
our systems all about guilty till proven innocent after all.
a true innocent till proven guilty system would be one where the accused isnt referred to as the perpetrator or arrested and jailed before being proven guilty.
sorry but being arrested and having all your possessions taken, your website destroyed, your reputation sullied is quite the opposite of an assumption of innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By this definition, the U.S. Government should be paying for the costs of maintaining the servers. By this definition also, it is utterly and completely inexcusable to allow the data that is MegaUpload's to be deleted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really - he is a justice apologist because he is dismissing piracy (and money laundering) as being unimportant and seemingly not in the government and the people's interest to take action on.
It should also note that in Mr Goldman's published papers, you can also see that he is a Google apologist, and seemingly a solid freetardian futurist. Not really much surprise in seeing him come out against the Mega action, considering where he generally stands.
Those who can do, those who can't teach - and those who live in a dream become tenured professors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A justice apologist? Are you seriously suggesting that justice itself is now an undesireable quality?
> because he is dismissing piracy (and money
> laundering) as being unimportant and seemingly
> not in the government and the people's interest
> to take action on.
He did no such thing. He merely criticized the manner in which it was being handled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He said:
"Trying to hold Megaupload criminally liable for its users' actions. Criminal copyright infringement requires willful infringement, a very rigorous scienter level. "
Yet that seems to ignore all of the actions by Mega to hide the popularity of movie files, of the emails discussing the situations, and the use of shell companies to filter money out of the corrupt enterprise and launder it. If Kim had nothing to hide, why create this elaborate charade of multiple companies, pay outs, commissions, and so on?
He seems to be ignoring what has been publicly discussed so far, and is more intent on getting plug for his 10 year old, mostly no longer relevant paper (OTBE).
I would say that the Professors comments on this case are completely in line with most of his other public comments on web piracy, freedom, and so on. It doesn't make him right, it just makes him one opinion in a sea of opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say all this stuff as if it were established fact. It's far from it. I'm familiar with these accusations, and initially even thought there might be something to them (based on the where-there's-smoke line of thinking).
However, there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to support any of this. At least, the arguments and evidence that have been presented so far don't even pass the laugh test.
My problem with what's happened to MU is that a company was put out of business with, apparently, little in the way of even probable cause to support the action. Further, this whole thing is clearly driven by a handful of large, influential corporations. The only solid motive I can see is just that they didn't like MU.
It's pretty obvious, based on how the US government has been behaving recently about all this, that they have nothing.
It looks for all the world like this is a gross injustice. This does even more damage to the credibility of the US legal system and law enforcement in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Purposely publishing a top list that SPECIFICALLY ignores infringing files... that's pretty much a slam dunk right there.
If you run a commission program, generally you would look at the type of material that is being downloaded most often (making your affiliates the most money) to see if you could generate similar content as a lower price. Considering that this is the lifeblood of the company (how money is actually made), you don't think perhaps that they looked at one or two accounts, or opened a couple of files along the way?
"My problem with what's happened to MU is that a company was put out of business with, apparently, little in the way of even probable cause to support the action."
There is all sorts of probable cause. The evidence is all over the internet. It's in how the companies were structured. It's in the emails, in the actions taken by the principals, and the way things operated.
The only gross injustice is people standing up for a guy who made his money ripping off others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even Manson, Dahmer and McVeigh deserved fair trials. I don't give a crap if you're found standing over 4 corpses with a bloody knife in your hand, you deserve due process. I'm sorry if "gross injustice" in your eyes translates to "a reasonable chance of defending against allegations", but that doesn't fly with me, especially in cases where *potential* profit is all that's being discussed - nobody died as a result of MU's actions, legal or illegal.
If Megaupload are found to be guilty in the eyes of the law, fine, throw the book at Dotcom and his accomplices. Until then, all you're doing is attacking those who want there to be fair trials, due process and the burden of proof on those making the allegations. Your opposition to these basic rights being upheld is only making one side of this argument look bad, and it's not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, boy, there aren't.
The only things you can legally present to impede someone's First Amendment rights are defamation and deliberate lies that cause harm/destruction to life and property.
Neither case applies in the MegaUpload persecution...I mean prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only things you can legally present to impede someone's First Amendment rights are defamation and deliberate lies that cause harm/destruction to life and property.
Neither case applies in the MegaUpload persecution...I mean prosecution.
Wow, really? I take it you've never even glanced at the actual law before deciding you fully understood it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like you're saying: Megaupload is already guilty and any defence of them is automatically invalid because it's a defence of a guilty party.
Good to know you respect the ideals of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Based on existing case law from what I read.
He thinks that MegaUpload's "subjective belief in these defenses should destroy the willfulness requirement." I think a jury is likely not to believe that MegaUpload was in good faith and their willfulness is not hard to establish.
Really? Believing that what one's actions are defensible in the eyes of the law isn't enough to destroy the willingness argument? What planet do you live on? It's pretty simple: if I believe that what I am doing is lawful, then I am not willfully breaking the law. And what makes you think the USG will ever let this come to a jury trial?
The arguments about this being just like shutting down a printing press are rather specious.
No at all. It's pretty much identical to that. Enormous amount of speech from completely innocent parties have been silenced.
And good grief with the argument that not preserving the servers will destroy exculpatory evidence.
What, you think it won't? So only the prosecution gets to cherry-pick evidence? Yeah, that's a fair trial, isn't it.
You guys can whine and try and frame this as an innocent website being wrongfully treated, but suffice it to say that not everyone shares that opinion.
I don't give a shit about your opinion or Dotcom's or anyone else's. What I care about is my government following the Constitution and not abusing it's power to return a favor or two to some legacy gatekeeper industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No at all. It's pretty much identical to that. Enormous amount of speech from completely innocent parties have been silenced."
Actually, it is a pretty poor argument. One could say that your computer is your printing press, and your server is just the paper, the result of the printing. Are you suggesting that the government should not be able to seize printed copies anymore either?
The Mega owners could very easily use their printing press (their computers) to "print" a new site. Everything else is just paper and the apparatus to distribute it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moreover, the USG has seized the servers upon which the data is stored and is refusing to give them back in their condition when they weere seized. If you think that's justice, then I have a Joker to loose upon New York.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then think of it this way: It's a library where instead of the works of published authors being stored, it's the works of the individual patrons being stored. The Constitution demands that the scope of seized speech be limited as much as possible to avoid unnecessary prior restraint. That clearly did not happen here.
Also, whether another avenue exists is immaterial, it's still an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the suggestion is that the government should not be able to destroy printed copies prior to trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, because the best way to mount a legal defense with supporting evidence is to have that evidence destroyed before trial.
Do you even think before you speak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Out of curiosity, how do they show the evidence when they can't even see the data and the gov't wants it destroyed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple, Mike. They tell the judge a plausible story about how something that's on those drives might possibly be used defensively. Apparently, they haven't been able to even do this. And it's not like MegaUpload doesn't know what information is on those drives. It's their information, their drives. If some kind of exculpatory evidence is on the drives, they should be able to describe it to the judge. This, they haven't done (as far as I know). It's not some conspiracy to take away their defense, or whatever crazy thing you've cooked it up to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Describe to us, right now, without looking at your hard drives, in detail, all the files you have: type, content, and exact location on each drive. Now multiply by that task by about 25 BILLION times.
Its amazing the stuff you "if it looks like a pirate its guilty CHOP THEIR HEADS OFF NO TRIAL!!!" shills come up with to justify your oppressive actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it is very much like that, as the vast majority of that data was put there and managed by their users.
If you were talking about some kind of "smoking gun" document, you might have a point. However, MU is in the position of trying to prove a negative. The only way to begin to do that would be to engage in a large data-mining operation to show patterns of usage (or lack of them).
So MU would necessarily have to say "we need the entire database". Which they have, indeed said.
Well, the whole thing really looks a lot like a conspiracy of sorts. Or, following the old maxim, it could just be incredibly gross incompetence. I'm not sure which is more damning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should they have to in the first place? That seems awfully backwards. A defendant has to ask for permission to be able mount their own defense? WTF.
What if the evidence they seek is ALL the data on the servers?
Since the majority opinion in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. states that it "...does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses...." all they need to show is that it was used for things other than copyright infringement.
And your misguided belief that Mega would know everything in a dataset that size is incredulous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, now I understand. You have no freaking clue what you're talking about.
The whole point is that Megaupload merely provides storage. They don't know what's on the drives.
So I'm out on this thread. You've proven not only that you're limited to ad hominem attacks, but that you're also completely ignorant on what you're arguing about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure how you think I have no clue. If MegaUpload had a good argument, they would have made it. The facts speak for themselves, though. You just don't like the answer. It's just more sour grapes from you (and the professor, for that matter).
We all know that you've already decided that MegaUpload is being treated unfairly, no matter what actually happens. Working backwards must be nice. So simple to view things that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, the government looks like clueless thugs that does not seem to be able to mount a proper trial. Dunno how this helps your argument though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such evidence would likely be on the servers. Which they can't access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
no he is not, america still has the principle of INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
So mega upload is not a bunch of pirates until they get convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
theres a huge disconnect between the word of law and the implementation/practice of said law.
speaking as somebody whos been there and watched friends also go through this shit....our legal systems only "fair" if your extremely rich of famous in this country, and even then, its a crapshoot if somebody even richer and more powerful wants you taken down a notch....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The arguments about this being just like shutting down a printing press are rather specious."
You know you wouldn't recognize a specious argument if one walked up to you, shook your hand, and said "Hello, I'm a specious argument and I'd love to be your opening statement!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The sad thing is, there's enough people both in government and outside of it who buy into the lies to make this a real problem outside of the handful of obsessed trolls on this site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or
It is the sigh of the releasing of air from the now full vacuum that is inside your cranial compartment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He'd rather be jealous and cuddle up with his Masnick doll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
U mad bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you for demonstrating what a brainless troll would say just to make itself a buck.
Now please go put the fascists' privates back into your smegma-encrusted mouth like a good little sub-human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess actually following the rule of law means nothing to you, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope. It means a lot to me. I'm concerned about everyone's rights: MegaUpload's, the victims', third-parties', etc. It seems to me that Mike and his crew only care about one side's rights--the alleged infringers. I don't operate that way. All the professor has is some one-sided arguments that the government is doing something wrong. Obviously there's arguments the other way, too, and I happen to think those are the better arguments. It's not so black and white though, since new ground is being broken here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
how is that not an assumption of guilt?
if he where presumed innocent the wouldnt have had his home raided by anti terrorist troops, he wouldnt have had all his assets seized, he wouldnt have been imprisoned and then put on house arrest.
sorry but this is all guilty till proven innocent, rather then the flowery words of our system "innocent till proven guilty"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Amazing that you find defending the rule of law to be "apologizing for piracy."
Sad. But amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sad. But amazing.
It's cute how you turn the defendants into the victims (the classic pirate-apologist bait-and-switch move). In case you didn't notice, Mike, your pirate friends at MegaUpload are finding out about the rule of law. The side defending the rule of law is the government, not your criminal friends. Give me a break with siding with the pirates every time, but then pretending like you're not pro-piracy. It doesn't bother me nearly as much that you're pro-piracy as it does that you lie about it. Sad. But amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All your arguments stem from your inherent assumption that the government can't not uphold the law and can't not be just.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If megaupload is guilty and have the book thrown at them so be it(never liked kim or the site anyway) but let's not lose sight of more important issues in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your user handle seems entirely appropriate. Personally I boycott mickey-mouse copyrighted content from the entertainment industry(generally I'm not missing much). Your business model is dead.
What next, force people to watch your garbage, and mandatory fees for all.
Rentier!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need to find a terminally ill big star
He has to be terminally ill, because, frankly, I think what would happen to his career would make what happened during the McCarthy era look like kindergarten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need to find a terminally ill big star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The nuke option sounds interesting, but I really don't want to see what mutated hollywood/music execs look like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry. dont agree with that statement at all. I'll bet you anything, the government relied entirely on the bullshit, lies and false accusations, yet again, from the entertainment industries. the US government and all US law enforcement depts involved in this fiasco should be severely condemned, fined excessively to the same degrees that Mega would be, stopped from ever conducting this type of operation again without written and indisputable proof of wrong doing on the part of those accused and jail time given to the ones that orchestrated this whole shambles!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Department of Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Department of Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Department of Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Department of Justice?
Republicans with their 1% corporate masters would be better how...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Department of Justice?
as a friend of mine and I Like to say, Obama:best republican president ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Department of Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Department of Justice?
The very definition of whats wrong with the USA's political system is people like YOU. Contrary to what you believe, the entirety of our nations political problems did not commence on Jan 20, 2009. Nor are they limited to liberal/democrat/whatever-you-want-to-demonize-today parties or ideologies alone.
Wake the fuck up and get a clue about what is REALLY going on. It's about power, and government rule. This is not a partisan issue, its a human nature issue. Give someone power, and they will use it. Give someone absolute power, and they WILL abuse it. History has shown this to be true in every case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Department of Justice?
best argument for term limits working in any govt related job i have ever heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Department of Justice?
I'm not disparaging this, by the way, just pointing out the disconnect between the gov's point of view (these aren't Americans, so we don't have to follow the Constitution) and the people's point of view (We hold these truths to be self evident that all men were...).
In other words, it is the ancient debate between the spirit and the letter, between loop-hole exploiters and those who abide by obvious intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Department of Justice?
Actually, this underlying principle has been in play for a very, very long time. It's been heralded by all branches of government at various times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theres nothing else needed
this was nothing more than a favor by a government employee to former business partners.
this is the exact definition of corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aww...
*knock**knock**knock*
.... Hang on. Someone's at my door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the upside, I don't believe Dotcom is the type of person who will be satisfied when the US offers a deal or drops the charges. Being the egoist he is, he'll fight, in the media and the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Goldman, I hope he sleeps well at night knowing that he aborted baby jesus so he could better worship pirate Hitler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Otherwise the writer of the screed about Goldman (whoever he is), Jesus, and Hitler is a total idiot, not even a partial idiot, like most "you're aiding piracy" posters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sheesh. Talk about misinformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an abuse of Authority
This is an abuse of power, not authority.
(/English_Teacher)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Non US corporation cannot be held criminally liable for any US crime.
Though I already have the understanding that if the USG tries to ratify such a law, reciprocity will instantly come into affect and US corporations will be fully liable for such criminal charges as criminal Negligence, Murder, Conspiracy, Interference, etc.. under other sovereignties, and some of those foreign jurisdictions actually break through the so called glass ceiling holding management at multiple levels fully liable as well.
Seems Interpol might have there hands full dealing with the influx of warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is simply untrue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whilst a NON US Corporation can be held criminally liable by say a Grand Jury (which most foreign jurisdictions take with a grain of salt [or is that a ham sandwich]) to be actually brought to trial they like any defendant needs to be formally and with appropriate authority served with those charges.
That's the problem , you cannot under any of your criminal codes or judicial procedures legally serve any foreign corporation that does not reside upon US soil. (there are many reasons for this not the least being jurisdictional, comity, treaty & trade issues)
Since Megaupload did not reside upon US soil in any way shape nor form (the .com doesn't even get considered since it is not a fixed item ie: to land)
Therefore I stand by what I stated, interestingly so does the US District Court Judge O'Grady who is overseeing this case, who has raised that and awaits the DoJ to submit there reasonings on why they claim the serving of papers was proper and should therefore proceed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It does not matter where the person is located, only where the crime occurs. Mail fraud is an example, tax evasion another. The US government must convince the other government that it is a crime and give evidence. The other government serves papers, arrests and so forth.
Whether this was done correctly in this case, I don't know. That the US does this abusively, overreaches, is arrogant, and so forth is often clear. But your statements about law are incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An Individual can dependant on the Extradition treaty be extradited yes, A corporation by its very nature cannot be extradited. A non US citizen can (thought they need to have ties with US Soil too) be charged and served then extradited yes.. A Corporation can be charged never extradited and never served.
You are either confusing or conflating two separate issues. One of physical individuals and the other of an Intangible Entity made up of shares. Corporation Law 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they kinda have to win
They picked a very high profile target and with that many eyes on a case littered with dubious evidence and procedures, they kinda have to win it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they kinda have to win
We should fully expect the US Government to bend, break, and make up on the spot any laws they need to in order to ram an extradition and then a guilty verdict through. The government doesn't have a case. They know it. We know it. Kim knows it.
And the worst part is, after this finally plays out, even if the government fails to convict Kim of anything, they'll do whatever it takes to make sure Kim is unable to successfully counter-sue them for damages to his company. People need to hold the government's feet to the fire on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The wheel is turning
The truth is that the Internet looks good and the Entertainment industry looks worse and worse every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
let me say this again, neither side give a fuck about "we the people" they only care about their own power and wealth, both sides get huge donations(bribes) to run for office from big content.inc, big pharma and so on, they only care what their corporate masters want, and then only because they want to get re-elected :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baseless talk
Mr. Anonymous Coward: Go and troll/flame else where like 4chan where you hail from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True
Because if it did most of Hollywood and a large percentage of politicians would be behind bars. What a wonderful world that would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole problem with a system where positions are obtained by vote is that it encourages the pursuit and desire for power, no matter how transparent the process. A better way, as I think I've said before, would be a random selection process with terms lasting only one year at all levels and a stipend based on a more average income, somewhere in the five digit range. Make public service more akin to jury duty than the corrupt, backscratching porkfest it is now. And lobbying would be forbidden and harshly punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, that's right. They already tried that, TPB was back up in three days. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the list of legal threats against TPB, and their responses is absolutely hilarious.
http://thepiratebay.se/legal
It's unfortunate Megaupload is still down, just goes to show why companies prefer to not do business inside the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government doesn't want this to go to trial
The whole point is just to scare the other file lockers and make life difficult for the people who run it. Anyone else - indie artists distributing their own songs, fans who are distributing new mods and maps for their favorite games, and people who wanted a cloud backup of their important files - is just collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was meant to do what it did, it shocked the cyberlocker ecosystem. Several of them have blocked the US entirely, several have shifted to a model where only the uploader can access the files they put up, several have folded.
This of course has nothing to do with the fact that despite the promise of 6 strikes coming soon, it can not track cyberlocker downloads. /s
The indictment is meant to be a scalp that can be shown off to scare companies and people.
This is a common tactic used by lawyers, a prime example being the $200,000 (or was it $250,000) "win" Marc Randazza won against an alleged pirate. The headline on the press release gave the huge number, and left of it was a settlement not a win. It left out the detail that the actual amount having to be paid was merely $25,000 but if the defendant made his payments on time and never misbehaved ever again the actual amount owed would be knocked down over time. Shortly there after John Steele was touting this huge amount in his shakedown letters to help scare more people into settling the allegations against them rather than face that huge amount of money being awarded against them.
This was meant to scare people into behaving, limiting access to new technologies with various uses all at the behest of 2 cartels trying to keep a business model at the expense of innovation.
Expect to see more new ideas moving outside of the US, avoiding .com and other domains that the US claims give them the right to pursue foriegn companies, and the US being wholesale blocked from using these new tools.
Dan Bull breaking into the charts shows the power of the P2P network for unsigned artists, this scares the hell out of the legacy players who need people to believe without them you can not make it at all. They throw dirt at everyone who makes it without them, claiming its not enough where the artists are rejoicing at an actual connection with fans and seeing the direct support rather than waiting for a check in 4 months with huge subtractions made for the gatekeeper.
The internet has changed the world we live in, but some still look for the ways it MIGHT be used to harm them instead of how they can use it to succeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extreme justice
The sooner Hollywood goes bankrupt the better, more and more people who would have bought DVD's and gone to the cinema are rather sharing entertainment with there friends in a form of boycott of the American entertainment industry. It will bring them to there knees eventually , just needs to be promoted more and all it really needs is one case of them suing an old lady or a 7 year old to generate the anger that saw SOPA brought to it's knees.And remember many many people did not think anything would prevent SOPA from passing, it was a major wakeup call to the Government , that so many people felt so strongly about not passing laws just to protect one crappy business model, that they were prepared to suffer a day blackout to prove there anger.It worked once now all it needs is that spark to totally destroy the American involvement in entertainment worldwide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry I'm late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA Also responsible
The Hollywood studios should also be held accountable for any employer, employee or actor under contract.
The record companies should be held responsible for the behavior of all it contracted musicians and so on.
Of course their argument would be that they have no control over their subordinates' behavior.
Now there is a question I would like to see asked in court.
Imagine if the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff and Megaload was held responsible then the same rule should apply to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]