The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
from the hey,-not-our-machines... dept
In the ongoing saga of what happens to all the data stored on the Megaupload servers, the Department of Justice has now filed a truly revolting argument in seeking to end the efforts by a Megaupload user, Kyle Goodwin (who uploaded and stored sports videos that he shot), to regain access to the content he uploaded.As we've noted, there's been a lot of finger pointing going on here, with a bunch of highly questionable actions on the part of the government, including its repeated suggestion that all of this data -- which, remember, they seemed to think was evidence of a crime -- should simply be deleted. But what's so sneaky and duplicitous about the DOJ's argument here? They're saying that because they never actually seized the servers in question, this has absolutely nothing to do with them -- and that Goodwin would be better off suing Megaupload or Carpathia (the hosting company) or simply paying Carpathia to access the servers. Basically, it says that no one's stopping him... other than the fact that all the servers are offline thanks to the feds' own actions (but, please, they'd prefer you not remember that part). They actually seem to feign surprise that their own actions of seizing Megaupload's domains and all of the company's (and its exec team's) money, and arresting the entire senior management team... might lead to the site being shut down entirely.
Basically, it's as if the government walked into a china shop, smashed up every last piece, and then walked out. When the owner then sought restitution from the government, the government suddenly insists that since it didn't take any of the broken pieces out of the shop, there's no cause for action against the government. And all the smashed up little pieces are still there, so why would anyone complain?
Oh, and just to add totally obnoxious insult to injury, the DOJ also says that even if the court decides that there's some merit in the arguments laid out by Goodwin, even that doesn't matter, because it'll just cop out and declare "sovereign immunity" and avoid having to pay out. The whole thing is a fairly disgusting display by the DOJ showing just how far it will go to lock someone up once it's determined to. They will cause all sorts of collateral damage, and when someone calls them on it, they'll just point the finger elsewhere... all while demanding even more power to censor with impunity.
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: doj, kyle goodwin, seizure
Companies: carpathia, megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the government said if the court grants Goodwin's request, it would open the door for any third party to petition the courts any time a search warrant affects them adversely
In other words... "look, if you grant this, then everyone who ever has any property unlawfully confiscated by the government will come back asking for it."
Oh, the humanity. Save us from ourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No what it means is that, in the case of any seizure, third parties (whos goods or products were in the seized business at the time) would have the right to request return of those goods, regardless of actual ownership. The feds would then be forced to fight any number of lawsuits regarding ownership of the property in question, and deal with the resulting fall out.
It just doesn't work that way, and cannot.
Can you imagine criminal organizations using multiple companies to "own" everything in an illegal operation, and as soon as it is seized, they petition to get it all back, and re-open the illicit business the next day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can see where that might be trouble in blind/blanket seizures like we have with MU. It would certainly give the government pause before they executed such indiscriminate property grabs. What's worse? They might even start asking their investigators to show probable cause before approving seizure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, uequivocably.
I would argue that losing the property then having to petition the court and waste your time pleading and waiting years for its return is issue enough.
No, I would say her problem is her property was seized with the free-wheeling No-Fourth approach to drug enforcement in this country.
I know there may not be, but there really should be recourse for your crack dealer's mother and Goodwin.
Seized assets are caught up in massive 'losses' constantly. Something needs to be done to stop people with a government job from stealing from those without.
R.I.P. Fourth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To protect society, man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the "crack house" in question is advertising itself as a furniture storage company and indeed operates as a furniture storage company in addition to whatever other activities it has and the woman is guilty of no crime in connection with the property and can prove she owns the TV and sofa... then "Yes.. duh!" is the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is exactly the point that these people refuse to understand. Every single "infringing" service - yes, the includes TPB, Napster, MP3.com and all sorts of other services they've shut down over the years *without* any real effect on piracy - has perfectly legal, legitimate uses. As time goes on, and these services fill holes that the record labels, etc. cannot or will not service, there will be far more legitimate customers having their livelihoods or data destroyed because someone doesn't want to admit they have legitimate competition.
The question should be - did the person who owns the property have the right to use the service in the way they did, and was there any real reason to think that what they were doing was not legal? If not, why should they be treated like a criminal just because the service they had every reason to believe was legal, and who used it for 100% legal uses turned out to have some dishonest customers?
That's one of the reason why the idiotic comparisons to car theft and drugs will always fail. Nobody's ever bought crack thinking they're not participating in a crime. Uploading your own documents, that you have legally and completely created yourself? Oh, these guys won't argue that the RIAA has to jump through these hoops to prove their claims, but it's OK for non-corporate entities to have their own property destroyed to protect the profits of those companies...
I'll argue all day long that people who use cloud services need to have local backups, but to be denied access to your own work because someone else committed a crime even if you could have made another copy? Unacceptable. Oh, and if the trolls want to argue that they be somehow required to make their own backups, congrats, you've just made one more step in understanding why these shutdowns will never work in the overall "fight" against "piracy". Try to think about why the digital copies you insist should be made would guarantee this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul, whatever "perfectly legal, legitimate uses" existed were dwarfed by the reality of the operation. Mega didn't make any real money storing people's data - they made money charging access to pirated content, plain and simple. Almost anything has some legal uses, the question remains one of scale.
It's not a question of one user putting up a pirated file, and the whole thing gets shut down. It's a question of all of the main files being pirated, the business model being predicated on charging for access to these files, and the money flowing from the center to other companies to launder it. There isn't 150 million to be made offering people free backups.
You can nod and wink all you like, but even you are smart enough to know what was going on. Why defend the obvious criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says you, it must be true then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit, yet to be proven in court - e.g. what were the "significant" illegal uses of mp3.com? You make assumptions in this area, but always seem to forget that people use these services perfectly legally - and the proportion of those using MU legally is greater than the proportion who used Napster, and that proportion is growing with each new service.
"It's a question of all of the main files being pirated"
Bullshit, unless you can define "main files" and provide proof. You can't, you only have your own assumptions in place of verifiable fact, as ever.
"There isn't 150 million to be made offering people free backups."
You are aware that Megaupload provided other services, which were utilised by people using the services legally, right? Or do you just choose to ignore those again because they interfere with your own predetermined view?
"You can nod and wink all you like, but even you are smart enough to know what was going on. Why defend the obvious criminals?"
I have a different opinion, and I'm only defending the innocent victims of this. Why do you attack bullshit strawmen instead of reality?
Stop making up crap about my opinion and start looking at what I actually write. It will help,.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Firstly: Megaupload's primary form of acquiring currency was through premium memberships, which held legitimate content. Not only did this legitimate content provide the majority of their revenue, it also provided its' users with many advanced features in return. Sure, the site had infringing content. So what? Every site to a degree ends up having it, the way the current law system seems to work. If you want to argue logical fallacies, here's one to digest: your entire brain is copyrighted. All those ideas and thoughts going through your head?
They were someone else's first. That means approximately 64.2% of your brain is copyrighted, and that means you're a criminal. Which means about 100% of the human population is a criminal. Where am I going with this?
See how my argument also falls flat on its' face? See how logically that makes no sense whatsoever, to even someone with half a brain? This is precisely what your argument for Mega's profit being made from pirated content reads like. I'd suggest not only ingesting common sense, but ingesting some articles from reputable tech news sources, especially if you refuse to believe Techdirts informed articles themselves, before spouting off your nonsensical, fallacial idiotic statements again.
Just saiyan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that the DoJ is using an argument that is relevant by the finest of lines possible to deny a user access to his content tells you all you need to know about the people "involved" in this investigation. IT's a farce, and somewhere, the line fo abuse has to stop.
In soem cases, that leads to a very short lifespan for the abuser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason I say partial is that the DoJ is behaving in this case as if they are using the rulebook for distribution charges... i.e. there are no Fourth Amendment protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More like the owners were alleged by competing 3rd parties to be responsible for random locals selling crack on their property. Or Storage A called the fbi and said Storage B is a bunch of dirty crack dealers and they know because they saw some guy that looked like a crack head run through the parking lot so the fbi came and picked up the entire property and put it on someone else land and demanded they throw it away or pay the taxes for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If she has the receipts, why not?
Unless the government can prove they are using the sofa and tv as evidence (there's crack residue on the sofa or crack secreted in the tv), why would they keep it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His issue is with mega or the hosting company, not with the feds.
[ 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:
Oh no are you working the case?? This sounds real familiar somehow....
NA Judge:
DoJ:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why on earth does the government need or want to deprive someone of stuff they lent someone? It's not illegal to lend some stuff to your son or to have a son who is both legally an adult and a crack addict.
It's mysterious why they would think they need to seize a tv and sofa even if it belongs to the crack addict, unless they genuinely believe it enabled crime acts or is the proceeds of crimal acts.
What the hell do they want with a crack tainted sofa anyway? Are they going to sell that to some unsuspecting person who will then let their toddlers crawl all over it? Should they also seize the crack addicts clothes? Maybe auction off their under pants? It's not something I'd buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feds seize what they 'assume' is a crack house... unfortunately they get the address wrong and seize Charlie Sheen's house (lets pretend that it's NOT a crack house but the feds think it is because the **AA assured them that it was and that they would have the evidence planted by the time the Feds get there).
Now Charlie Sheen's mother's couch and dresser are in his house. Should Charlie Sheen's mother be able to claim her rightfully owned property that was illegally seized by the feds in their bungled 'crack' house seizure?
You are still 'assuming' that the case against MegaUpload isn't a load of crap that's falling apart with no evidence of this 'money laundering conspiracy'....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What do you mean, "regardless of actual ownership"?
Ownership of the data in this case is clear. The videos are not infringing on the copyright of anyone else. The guy who is suing is the rightful owner.
If we translate this case into physical items, what the government seems to be saying is that if a criminal rents a car, uses it to commit a crime, and it is then seized, the car rental company cannot get it back. If the government wants to, it can destroy the car, or sell it off, and the rental agency has no recourse. That is ludicrous. I fully expect that in a legal seizure, the government could use the car for evidentiary reasons, but at some point they would have to give it back to the rightful owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So he can produce an original copy to show that it is his?
Oh wait, he doesn't have any backups, so it would be strictly his word, and nothing more.
Yeah, that sounds "clear" to me.
Having worked in the car rental world in the past, I can tell you that this is essentially correct. Cars are often seized as evidence and held for the length of the court case, and depending on circumstance, can in fact be sold by the state at the end of the process. It would depend on how the car was used (was it part of a hit and run, example, or was it just the car the guy was in when he was arrested).
If something is in evidence, you cannot just claim it back. Doesn't work that way.
[ 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:
His word against whose? So the government is refuting his claim? Or another copyright holder is saying that the data is infringing? No? Then its clear.
Having worked in the car rental world in the past, I can tell you that this is essentially correct. Cars are often seized as evidence and held for the length of the court case, and depending on circumstance, can in fact be sold by the state at the end of the process.
Then that is ludicrous. I'm not arguing that the government might need to hold it as evidence if it is materially important to the case, but once they are done, then simple common sense means it goes back to the rightful owner (assuming third party unconnected to the crime). Anyone claiming to respect any form of property rights should be agreeing here. Completely ludicrous and needs to be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a fucking hypocrite. You invoke the cry of property rights in the Megaupload case and spend the rest of your time as a piracy apologist. How about the creators property rights being protected from wholesale looting? WHere the righteous indignation for those property rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should you expect righteous indignation for something the public has less and less respect for every day? People only respect laws they believe in and can see working positively. Thanks to decades of constant ratcheting upwards of copyright laws by greedy rightsholders and then wholesale abuse of those laws at the public's detriment (of which this case is a perfect example), you and your ilk are really not in any position to demand respect. It's quite incredible for you to support the punishment of completely innocent parties because of the government's ham-fisted actions, while at the same time expecting us to be feeling sorry for you. You are completely deluded.
[ 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:
I don't have these problems with the producers and distributors of essential goods constantly trying to degrade my rights, and interfere in ways that will cost me more money (like putting the costs of protecting their copyright onto my ISP who will pass them onto me) or holding back innovation on the internet by trying to pass their copyright enforcement efforts onto other private companies such as Google, nor raiding the public purse trying to gain disproportionate resource dedication to their interests from tax payer funded entities, and perhaps worst of all, subverting international free trade agreement processes to usurp my country's rights to self government in democratic representation of the people, and hence the circumvention and degradation of my democratic rights.
For entertainment?!
I've stopped paying for this assault against my rights since the Dotcom raids, and would have stopped earlier if I had known what I have since learned, and there is still plenty of content I can legitimately access. More than I have time for to be honest.
[ 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:
Copyright in this day and age is being used to syphon money from the general public into the coffers of a small bunch of entitled middleman who are entirely too used to playing the victim, and expecting to be compensated for work they didn't do, and business models which don't work any more. The sooner we get rid of these leeches, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I respect physical property rights, and only physical property rights. I do not respect monopoly rights over any form of content, ideas, or data - that type of infinitely copyable information should be available to all - I have made no secret or excuse of that.
I see no hypocritical aspect of disagreeing that copyright and patents are necessary, while at the same time disagreeing that the government can go and seize data and prevent the owner of that data from accessing it. When I copy a movie without permission, I have not stopped the movie studio from having use of that movie. In this case, the government has in fact prevented this guy from having use of his data.
If you can point out a flaw in that view, instead of a strawman you are creating, please be clear on what it is. I have the ability to think critically of my views and change them if evidence and logic warrant it, unlike some others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Josh, your stupidity is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a difference between intellectual property and other types of property you might be overlooking.
The reason property rights exist in the first place is because a society agrees as a whole that property rights are better than the alternative, which is "might makes right" or "he with a larger arsenal wins".
One aspect where intellectual property rights differ from other property rights is in the "society as a whole" part. It's fairly evident that a good sized chunk of our society doesn�t respect intellectual property rights as they sit now. Maybe, as a society, we should be re-thinking what deserves protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Physical property rights exist to allocate scarce resources. Real eastate, for example. There is a finite quantity of land on the planet, or in any country/state/province/county/city. If someone builds a house on a chunk of land, another person cannot use that same land to build their house.
This situation does not apply to infinitely copyable data. My copying of data does not prevent anyone else from using that data for their own purposes. So property rights do not make sense to apply to data. I don't accept or respect things that do not make sense.
Again, please point out the flaw in my view, instead of some strawman you are making up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider that there are literally billions of distinct pieces of real estate in the world, but only a few thousand new movies each year. Aren't movies even more scarce? No, not the copies of them, the originals. Infinite copying of a blank DVD gives you more blank DVDs. You aren't copying random 1s and 0s, you are copying a unique and rare thing, a movie.
If you are going to give some sort of exclusive rights to something that there are literally billions of (real estate) why wouldn't you give it to something that is many, many times more rare?
The flaw in your view is simple: You want the rights to own your house and have everyone respect it, but you are unwilling to respect the rights of artists and creators. You want it all, but you don't want to share what you have freely with everyone else.
Perfect example of the gen-y version of property: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To paraphrase from Red Dwarf:
Holly: How simple do you want this?
Rimmer: So shills can understand it.
Holly. Oh, dear.
Rimmer: It's difficult, I know.
So, I'll take you step by step. See if you can follow along:
1. You have a digital file. It can be anything�text, video, music, game, whatever. Copyrighted or not. It doesn't matter.
2. You hit Control+C on your keyboard. Or from the menu, File->Copy.
3. You navigate to the folder where you want the copy to be.
4. You hit Control+V on your keyboard. Or from the menu, File->Paste.
5. A copy of the original file is placed in the destination you chose.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 as much as you like. This can be done INFINITELY. The only limit is the size of your storage medium.
Now do you get it? And by the way, how much did you pay for that air you're breathing now? Paying for digital copies makes about as much sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The flaw in your view is simple: You want the rights to own your house and have everyone respect it, but you are unwilling to respect the rights of artists and creators.
These are fundamentally different rights about fandamentally different things. Scarce and non-scarce. Rivalrous and non-rivalrous.
If it was possible for everyone in the world to come and live in my house, eat my food, or use my internet connection without preventing my own use of those things, I would gladly do it.
You want it all, but you don't want to share what you have freely with everyone else.
I freely share my knowledge and expertise with those who ask. I'm sure you'll bring up that I get paid by my employer for those. My employer pays for my time - someone's time is a scarce resource - the time I spend working on specific projects. Once I'm no longer actively working on those things, I don't expect to continue getting paid. Artists and creators work hourly or on commission basis all the time. Its work-for-hire, and I have no problems with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are discussing two elements of a [potential] common wrong. You have unjustly and illegally enriched yourself. This guy has been deprived of property but no one has been enriched. The difference is that while your crimes are evident on their face, his lack of access may or may not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unjust enrichment does not exist. It's merely a dodge to get around the digital, infinite nature of copies of content and avoid the realities of basic economics in favor of mercantilistic greed so large it would make the Ferengi jealous.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have not claimed that copying a movie without permission is legal. I'm quite aware that is against the law. But I quite vehemently disagree with your assertion that just because something is illegal means that it is wrong. I encourage others to break laws which are wrong, unjust, and unethical. I see copyright law as all of those.
As to the topic at hand, how can the government's actions not be wrong? They have seized and prevented access to this guy's data, then claim not to have seized it. The original seziures have been shown to be deeply flawed and have not followed due process. Even if they had followed standard sezuire procedures, we have many indications that those procedures are unjustly depriving people of the rights and property, so there is clearly a problem with standard seizures in a general sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Josh, I really don't see how you can defend enjoying the creative output of another who offers that product for sale in order to make a living without also compensating him. I'll never get that and if you think that is right, fair and just, I'll need a better explanation as to why it is not wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will compensate the creator if what they offer has enough value, if it is offered in a convenient manner and reasonably priced. I don't have a problem with paying creators for their work. I have a problem with a creator demanding that they deserve to be paid just because they created something. I have a problem with a creator having veto power (a monopoly or copyright) over any use, sharing, or modification of their creation.
Most people will pay for something that is valuable to them when the creators make it easy and convenient to do so. This is no different than physical products. I buy my fruits and vegetables at the grocery store because it is easier and more convenient than growing my own. The farmers grew them, had them packaged and shipped to the store, and the store makes sure they're not rotten. But what if the farmer decided they didn't like that. Instead of sending them to the grocery store a couple miles from my house, they insisted I had to drive to the farm 100 miles away. When I got there, all they would do was to provide me with one option - a 20 pound bag of apples - that I couldn't inspect beforehand - and there were no refunds if when I got home I discovered they were rotten. If I only wanted 5 pounds, tough luck - and I'm prevented from sharing or giving away the rest to my neighbor. If I got fed up with that, and started planting the apple seeds so I could grow my own apple tree, the farmer could come by and cut it down, then fine me hundreds of thousands of dollars. You wouldn't tolerate that - and I won't either.
In general I see that copyrights and patents are wrong. Why? Imagine this. In the near someone has created a Star Trek style replicator. It can create food at no cost, anywhere in the world. This would obviously threaten the profits of Monsanto. Are the profits of one company a good enough reason to stop this new invention from feeding the world? What if we add in all the other agri-business companies? Thousands of farmers who can't adapt to grow specialty foods for people who want "the real thing"? Do all those companies and people deserve some kind of protection against something wonderful? The answer to me is obviously not. Now, food isn't exactly the same as knowledge, ideas, culture, and entertainment - but it is only a matter of degrees. We have a wonderful invention, the Internet, that can provide all those things at little cost to nearly everyone on the planet. How can it be wrong to use it to do so, just because of some companies and artists who can't adapt?
[ 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: Re: Re:
It's all about the collateral damage, which has been massive thanks to how poorly the government handled this case. The copyright industry would like everyone to believe that 100% of all the data on Megaupload's servers is illegal, but we all know that just isn't the case. Anyone who truly believes otherwise is a blind idiot to say the least.
The only question that matters and desperately needs to be answered truthfully is whether the non-infringing use outweighed the infringing use. How much of the data is perfectly legitimate and legal? How much of it isn't? Then we need to decide which should preferentially be sacrificed for the sake of the other. In my eyes it's the legitimate data that trumps the infringing stuff.
If you have no choice but to choose one, which is more important; protecting the innocent and allowing a few infringers to slip through the cracks OR punishing those infringers at the guaranteed expense of absolutely everyone else (who are innocent until PROVEN guilty by the way)? That's the crux of it. Logically speaking the choice should be whichever is the least damaging overall and it seems pretty clear which path that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh yeah, you're right! I would SO sue to get my COCAINE back because I used a shell company to "own" it so I could end-run a government seizure. Its FOOLPROOF!
Really, do you even think before you speak? If you love overbearing, totalitarian government so much, why don't you just move to where they are and let them run your life? Leave the rest of us alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, we now have the Miami Cannibal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we are doomed.
[ 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:
[ 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:
The sad part is it was less difficult than firelands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On this specific issue (like prosecuting whistleblowers), the Obama Administration isn't "just as bad." It's worse. Definitely worse.
You can claim that because of other issues you support the Obama Administration, and I would understand that. But you can't seriously claim that the Obama Administration is better or even just as bad on this issue.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, was that fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the person you cast your vote for had absolutely no chance of winning, and the greater of 2 evils won, then... Yes, it is a wasted vote.
However, this current 2 party system is this country's greatest problem, politically speaking.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To a simple mind perhaps. Go back a little further. This string was initiated by talk about third parties, which is what I was referring to. NOT the major parties, or losers in general. A viable third party that actually stood a chance of winning would be a great thing, but with the exception of Perot some years ago, no third party candidate has ever had a viable chance of winning a Presidential election.
I was not talking about McCain, Kerry, Gore, or anyone else who lost an election that actually had enough money behind them that they had a chance. I'm talking about the Ralph Naders of the world who NEVER had a chance. If it's a landslide election, it doesn't make much of a difference. However, any Nader voters in 2000 that would have preferred Gore over Bush wasted their vote. He didn't have the money behind him to pull it odd and he wasn't even on the ballot in every state.
Sheesh, I'm not even the one who brought up third parties or wasted votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
as such, they differ only in appearance.
[ 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: Humassery
The amazing part is how we accomplish this without killing bystanders in the process.
Being a dumbass sometimes isn't a huge character flaw, it just means you're human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Humassery
"A person is smart. People are dumb."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Humassery
-Agent Kay, Men in Black
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they keep this up, there won't BE an America to save in 4 years!
However, in typical fashion, his opponent this year is even slimier and more distasteful than he is...sigh!
In the words of Professor Farnsworth: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Mike, but the feds are right on this one. The only reason the feds seized the assets is because of the behavior of the company, which was flagrant and fairly well public. Any normal citizen doing due dilligence before selecting Mega as a storage medium would have been able to determine their notoriety and their "profile" online as a great place to put your infringing material. A quick search of google would turn up any number of questionable links.
That this guy still chose to use Mega, and Mega exclusively for content that he truly valued, with no other backup or support in place, is a head shaker.
His issue is with Mega, and not with the feds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since megaupload no longer has access to the data...what can they do? That means the company trying to run a business, has already been saddled with a hefty price tag, should also be sued because the government doesn't want to deal with the problems with its case?
Yep, I want to open a business in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are done. They have enough momentum from the last half-century that it might take another decade or two for the nation to completely collapse, but momentum from the past is the only thing keeping it going. The engine was dismantled a long time ago.
For those of you still living in the US, you might want to think carefully about moving out of the country within the next 10-20 years, while you still can. I can't say for certain exactly when the bottom is going to fall out, but when it does, it will be sudden, swift, and brutal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Besides, move out of the country and go where? Our theoretical decline would be part of a world wide decline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The supply and trade "chain" is an inter and cross-connected world wide web. When one node goes down, the rest of the web loses stability.
If you want to "buy American", go buy a Chevrolet, or an Audi... makes little to no difference to the US economy as long as you're buying and driving it here. There are lots of American jobs depending on the Hungarians building those German engines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And go where? There's no clearly superior option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not superior in terms of shiny stuff and reality TV, but almost assuredly better off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yea i think ill stay right here and fight to fix it, rather then run off to the turd world...
[ 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:
Iceland...eh, I'd consider it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...
Yep, we're boned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So....no where?
[ 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 ]
Too Many Re:
Personally, even with how messy Australia is, at least you're warm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that continues to be the case, then perhaps the best advice is to buy a gun and learn how to use it--for your sake and for your family's sake. You might find yourself in need of it one day.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that continues to be the case, then perhaps the best advice is to buy a gun and learn how to use it--for your sake and for your family's sake. You might find yourself in need of it one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dorkromacy
Kindly leave and fellate a legislator rather than darkening the enlightened forums of techdirt with your blather.
Good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Furthermore, since there are significant non-infringing uses for such a service (as this very article demonstrates), how is Mega in any way liable for the actions of its users? I don't recall VCRs being made illegal back in the day (despite the best efforts of MPAA lobbying), even though they also made it possible to copy media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, you may want to get more familiar with the Mega case before making the VCR argument, because it makes no sense in the light of how Mega was doing business. But hey, if you want to stand there and wave your arms frantically and yell random bits of Techdirt garbage, go for it. But it doesn't address the issue of the post, nor does it do a very good job of trying to justify Mega's business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please show, with specificity the following: 1) What information contained on Megaupload was in violation of the law, and 2) Where someone could go to find information on Megaupload and other sites online that will allow them to determine that the sites are questionable. The government can't seem to provide the answers to 1 in a court of law, and it is doubtful you'll even try to provide answers to either.
Many of us used Megaupload for uninfringing uses and some of us were even caught off-guard by the raid and the shutdown. Sure, the RIAA/MPAA kept saying they were evil, but the MPAA called VCRs evil and it is doubtful anyone was really listening to them (except the supersekret arm of the government who is a pawn to the international/multinational cabal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) See the complaint by the Feds.
2) Google.com
If I can search a site and find "DVD RIPZ" and software crakz on there, I would say they are questionable. It's would be enough of a red flag to either (a) not do business with them, (b) not trust them exclusively with your valuable and irreplaceable content, or (b) all of the above.
Using mega for non-infringing purposes doesn't eliminate or mitigate it's other uses. The risk factor is there, and anyone choosing to ignore the risk and store their irreplaceable content there gets what they deserve, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) See the complaint by the Feds.
2) Google.com
That is a new definition of the word specificity I was unaware of. Thanks.
As for the other crap you said, the Supreme Court disagreed with you in the case of MPAA vs the VCR, so I will ignore you as the idiot you are.
[ 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:
And a minor point, you put (b) twice.
[ 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:
We aren't deal with absolute, beyond a reasonable doubt proof here, just mitigating your risks.
Then again, the guy would have been wise to use more than one "free" backup service, and possible to actually have his own backups of his material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But yeah, the guy should have used multiple sites dedicated to the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights to store his own intellectual property.
Lessons learned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I have no pity for the fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I have no pity for a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So MegaUpload is illegal? Glad you've got this case all wrapped up! You should share whatever evidence you have with the government because they clearly don't have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, me neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(/s - I just wanted in on the "blame the victim" thread...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Name one "legal backup service" that can't be accused of being used for storing infringing files.
[ 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:
[ 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:
Because I've used all the legal backup services around and they've all been accused of the same thing Megaupload has been accused AND NOT CONVICTED OF.
Rapidhsare. Hotfile. Mediafire. Megaupload. Fileserve. Etc. Heck, I'm worried my backups on Google Drive won't soon disappear into the nether. Considering the fact that I actually can share any folder/file with anyone I want and then some. Heck, I can do the same with the Skydrive that goes along with a Hotmail account I have.
Heck, according to you shills/trolls anything that can't guarantee 100% non-infringement and DOES NOT go above and beyond what the law requires is NOT legal and obviously is purely for infringing purposes.
But seriously, point me to a legal backup service and I'll gladly use it. Of course most have made it so their services are not available to anyone in the U.S. because of the Megaupload disaster, but I'll wait while you think one up. I'd also like an explanation for why it is "legal". No rush. Whenever you're ready.
[ 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:
And really do I care about the legality of things? For me, if I were to use any form of online storage, I could have the "hard" copy of it (i.e. the original file) stored on a personal storage media (be it CD, flash drive or external hard drive), and the "soft" copy will be in that storage service. Now, I lost all of my data and it's lucky that I remember what my ideas were, but I couldn't make a back-up of those important files for multiple reasons. If I did made some back-ups, I would have used an online source to store those files and I would have also used multiple flash drives to keep those files safe in case something were to happen to my online files like Mega.
Do I care when it comes to legality? No. Sure the Internet is a shady place and I can't trust everyone that I meet, but I got to follow what I believe in, not in what someone else tells me too. If I can find a free place to safely store my files and have the accessibility to get those files any time, any place, then I'm satisfy with that service. If I don't trust that service, then I will move on to the next place and see I could find a better deal. This sort of thing will not go away no matter how many people complain. There will be others that will use this service and it will continue to live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you, example, store your furniture at a storage locker place, when the lockers on either side of yours are being used to sell drugs, and the main office is working as a fence for stolen goods? You likely would not. Why would you do the same online then?
For legality, I look at it this way: Mega's business model wasn't to be your free backup site, there was no money in it. So where were they making their money? People paying to download large files more quickly. What are those large files? Well...
you can guess the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, think, then post. It works better that way.
Most of us don't possess x-ray vision or surveillance equipment, and thus cannot confirm that the storage lockers across from us are being used to sell drugs or the the office is a fence for stolen goods. We are not supermen, unlike you claim to be, and we actually have to take someone's word. Sure, if people said, hey, there are drugs in that locker, we might move. However, the police (and I know this from personal experience,) would never shut down the locker company because drugs were present in one of the lockers. They would seize the drugs, process the locker for evidence, but shutting down the company unless the company was complicit would not be done. And if it was done, they wouldn't hold everyone's stuff hostage unless they knew that everyone was complicit and could prove so in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... But then again, there is a difference between digital copies and physical copies.
Like one commenter posted above me, if there's "free, legit" sites out there, can you point one out to all of us? I'm actually curious about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't fucking know, maybe they were:
Game demos
Free games
Mods to games (yeah, some are as big as 500mb, I have a few)
Movie trailers
Freeware
Shareware
etc
etc
etc
But somehow I don't think thats what you were trying to suggrest, despite the reality of the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course not! As soon as I read the signs out front that said "STORE YOUR DRUGS HERE!" and "ILLEGAL GOODS BOUGHT AND SOLD!" I would've run away and found a place that didn't have those signs. Coz I'm as smart as you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So that's why Dropbox is failing so hard! Thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
techflaws yet again you get right to the point and make an AC look like the idiot he is. [tips hat to you]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) Why are YOU looking for "DVD RIPZ"?
What are you planning to do with it?
2) The fact that you have to search for it indicates that the site's owners aren't promoting it and the software may be on there WITHOUT their knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me twist your argument as much as I can - Suppose I find myself in a neighborhood that 'everyone knows' is bad - The kinda place where you can find drugs, counterfeit watches or girls selling lemonade without a business license. If I get get my briefcase confiscated by the police while they're shutting down the lemonade stand, it's my own stupid fault for being too close. Yes? I shouldn't get my briefcase back. I should have known better than to bring it into such a seedy neighborhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick should be happy with this filing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick should be happy with this filing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That argument has failed a number of times in a court, and this one should also fail. The feds should have known that this action would impact lawful users of this service and should have taken the correct precautions to prevent undue harm to the lawful users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police Burning Down An Apartment Building (to : Eric, #50)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-ph iladelphia-bombing_x.htm
http://thegrio.com/2010/05/11/philly-neighborhood-still-scarred-by-1985- move-bombing/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "His issue is with Mega..."
Yea, I see your logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Yeah, it's totally disgusting. The feds are telling the guy that he has to sue the company he was doing business with, and not the feds. That is horrible, making the site owner actually responsible for their customer's satisfaction."
I would agree with this if the site owner hadn't had its ability to satisfy the customer completely blocked by the DOJ.
"Sorry Mike, but the feds are right on this one. The only reason the feds seized the assets is because of the behavior of the company, which was flagrant and fairly well public. Any normal citizen doing due dilligence before selecting Mega as a storage medium would have been able to determine their notoriety and their "profile" online as a great place to put your infringing material. A quick search of google would turn up any number of questionable links."
A quick search of any storage locker would turn up any number of questionable links. Your point is? While Kim Dotcom was flagrant and public, that doesn't mean that the Feds get to go in and destroy the ability of ALL legitimate users to access their legitimate data. The Feds could have used the same logic to seize all of the Carpathia servers, not just Megauploads. After all, Carpathia's servers were being used to store infringing material, were they not? Remember, Carpathia owns the servers, not Megaupload. The Carpathia servers are the actual property being used to commit the crime. Why stop there?
Let's take this to a real world example. I rent a storage unit in a sketchy part of town (the rent is cheap). There are gang tags everywhere. I put my things in my rented unit. The storage facility has also rented to gangmembers who happen to use their storage units for less than legal activities. The Feds raid the storage facility, and seize everything. The reasoning for this is that the storage facility is making profits off of the illegal activity of the gangmembers. My things are seized as well. The Feds won't give me my things back arguing that my things are still in the storage facility that has been seized, and therefore it is not their problem. Oh, and the last bit of information? The town is Hong Kong, and US Federal law does not apply there, but the payment processor is US based. Does this sound familiar? Obviously, it isn't a perfect analogy, but it is pretty close. The storage facility did its job and kept my items safe. I just can't retrieve them because they are "seized" by the US. I don't seem to have much beef with the storage facility.
"That this guy still chose to use Mega, and Mega exclusively for content that he truly valued, with no other backup or support in place, is a head shaker."
I can't disagree with this statement, but hindsight is 20/20. Most people don't develop a comprehensive back up plan until they have lost important data.
"His issue is with Mega, and not with the feds."
His issue is is with the Feds.
Bryan
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As the servers are in the United States and seized by the United States Government which implies at least temporary ownership of the servers and data on them belongs to the United States Government as we would with the seizure of physical objects. Which leaves only the US Government and/or Carpathia.
As Megaupload has no business at this moment, no cash flow and little chance of having any of that soon there is no point in suing them. I guess he could try to sue DotCom in New Zealand if there's much use while he's in custody.
So the US government it is as the current, if temporary, owner of record of everything Megaupload.
Perhaps once a court case begins in the United States, should DotCom be extradited from NewZealand, we'll hear what happened here from both sides. For the moment we're only hearing one side and that from the extradition hearing in New Zealand which doesn't fill me with confidence that the authorities actually HAVE a case.
Perhaps once day as you troll you'll find someone here who will completely agree with you other than bob.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just look at this one when they want Mega and Carpathia to be sued, they wanted users to have their data deleted, they want Mega to lose the information needed to protect themselves, then don't want Mega to have their money to pay their own lawyers.
I could do on but it is all we don't like you so punish, punish and more punish. This is of course total injustice.
Now they even go as far as "Damn the Courts and their Justice! We are the US Government and we can do anything we want!" And I so remember Obama promising us that he would respect the law much more than his predecessor did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Why on EARTH does the US government have ANY say whatsoever about the contents of servers half way around the world??"
Your government is on a clear quest for world domination that would make Dr. Evil jealous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expect anything less?
You mean those people?
Did you really expect anything less from them? We don't vote them into office. They put themselves there under the disguise of the "voting system". Welcome to America. Land of the almost free and home of the corrupt politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-You (MegaUpload) open up a storage shack, and get lots of customers, things go great for a few years.
-One company (RIAA) who's products you're letting customers store at your shack, decides that you should be arrested for theft, since some customers stole some of the products you're letting them store. So they get the DOJ to come in and arrest you and seize your whole storage shack for possessing illegally stolen property.
-Your landlord (Carpathia) meanwhile is suddenly not getting monthly rent checks from you, but the courts decide to keep all your stuff locked up in the storage shack, which keeps your landlord from kicking you out.
-Your customers meanwhile want access to all their stuff locked up in your shack. The DOJ insists that the whole storage shack should be burned to the ground to destroy all the stolen goods.
-Eventually the DOJ changes it's tune a bit and says the customers can pay your land lord for access to something they already paid you for.
-Seeing a chance to turn a money pit into a money maker your landlord decides to basically take over running your own business, while you still rot in jail for running the same business!
Hmm... now who's the real thief in this situation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Patent Pending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this
*ok ok... i'll leave now*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
J
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is just the argument the DOJ is making, it isn't the ruling. Although, my guess is the government will win the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suddenly the US thinks it's not responsible for the actions it has taken. Even the trolls here try to point to responsibility for ones actions, making this just a pure slimy move by the US that really knows better but doesn't want to accept the responsibility for it's actions and the cost it will bear for them.
So how long is it before we start hearing that everything dealing with net hosting, internet services, starts moving to other countries? The US has done some crazy things lately but these sort of actions are not only going to break the net as we know it but will leave the US outside looking in, ranting and panting like a child from it's own short-sighted actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immunity...
The DOJ and other governments can claim all the "immunity" they want, but sometimes the people get tired of their shenanigans, and bite them their hind quarters.
Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwB5SCpQv9U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I REALLY HAVE TO ASK...
Iv seen to many STUPID situations happen, city/county/state/fed that all Lead to the Gov. being sued and loosing money. OUR MONEY..
Or..
Are we just HIRING IDIOTS for the jobs and to represent ourselves?? Are we, REALLY, hiring the lowest common denominator to do our representative and justice in this nation??
recently we got rid of a mayor(?) that was taking money from 1 part of the town and dividing it up for OTHER uses. AS there was supposed to be an accounting in each year, and NONE was done for many years.. The AG came in and cleaned things up..
BUT, unless you wish a civil battle with the EX-EMPLOYEES(mayor and others fired) there is no real recourse for getting those monies back..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I REALLY HAVE TO ASK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I REALLY HAVE TO ASK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sovereign immunity?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate our government !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight
I smell a Kickstarter campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think so
Carpathia could certainly step up and with Megaupload's permission make the data accessible. However, this would cost money and Megaupload is not in position to pay. Perhaps some nice guy in Virginia is prepared to volunteer a week or two of his time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think so
Perhaps the situation would be different if there were a valid warrant, but I don't see that applying here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't think so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't think so
The scary part is that if this argument has any merit to the Courts, we've just doomed the whole sector of Cloud computing in the United States, as any reasonable person would look to host their data in a more friendly environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think so
The warrant was approved by a judge in accordance with established procedures. Therefore, it is valid and legal until overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who did you vote for in the last election?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Queda was right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(I just had to fix this)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]