Court Doesn't Buy DOJ's Argument For Why Megaupload User Can't Sue To Get His Data Back
from the another-failure dept
Just as the Justice Department is celebrating its "success" in the Megaupload case, a court was rejecting one of the DOJ's more ridiculous arguments in an offshoot case, involving Megaupload user Kyle Goodwin, who just wants his data back, but can't get it because the DOJ shot first and doesn't want to answer any questions later in court. The DOJ has been trying to deny Goodwin his day in court against them, attempting to say that Goodwin should sue Megaupload itself or the hosting company Carpathia, rather than the US government, who actually took down the site.The court, however, isn't buying it, and has said that a full hearing will be held. This doesn't necessarily mean that Goodwin will win in the end, but it's definitely a step in the right direction -- and represents yet another failure to add to the long list of failures in the DOJ's supposed "success" story.
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: access, censorship, data, doj, justice department, kyle goodwin
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ohhhh BUMMMMA
[ 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:
Of course, in that cartoon, the rabbit kicked the critter who was saying that's butt.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Trollsmile* Oh wait no it hasn't... In fact it's done maybe .00001% damage to the pirate world if that. There has been a goddamn flood of new host in the absence of MU.
I mean seriously shutting down a file host is just about effective as making high security file protection.. There will always be some 12 year old kid who's just a little smarter that will tear your security down to nothing and post it within a day or so of release.
If you ask the person making a security for a product if they can bypass it they'll always say of course. Full proof does not exist and only a moron will think it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That a motion to dismiss isn't get granted and the judge agrees to hold a hearing represents a failure? I'd guess that motions to dismiss are granted way less than half the time. When there's a doubt, jurisprudence demands a full hearing. But when you have nothing but straws to grasp at, this looks like a huge get.
[ 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: Re: Re:
He's going to jail.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, how desperate does someone have to be that they're claiming a victory because there's going to be an evidentiary hearing on a collateral issue. Here's what they're all excited about: http://ia600206.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.275314/gov.uscourts.vaed.275314.126.0.pdf
I hope he gets his files back too, but I'm not sure I understand how the government has even seized them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Going by how you constantly overlook how many times enforcement has fucked this case up we're pretty sure you don't understand anything about how the government has done this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rather than just being an angry asshole, why don't you say something productive? Can you explain how the government has seized his property when the government doesn't possess or control the servers the data is on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, it appears he isn't being an angry asshole. He's just pointing out how YOU seem to ignore all the mistakes made in the case, almost like you're being a government apologist and doing so just to keep coming to this site and writing things like "sounds like Mike's just being a piracy apologists and just wants to make the government look bad".
It's pointless explaining things to someone like you. You'll ignore them just to harp on about something that isn't being discussed.
Don't you get tired of your holier than thou attitude? Or do you not realize that the angriest asshole of all on this site is usually you? I'm going to make it a point, from this day forward to take note of and save every single comment of yours that has an ad hom in it or is completely off topic, as well as ignores mistakes made by the government in favor of something like I "quoted" above. Then I'll come back and post all that up, so we can show the class who the angry asshole who refuses to acknowledge government mistakes is.
And please Joe, getting riled up about someone not saying something productive. 400+ comments in some of the Funniest/Most Insightful articles, half of which are YOURS and just repeats of "WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME?!?! RAWR!" Yeah, way to add something productive to the conversation. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I don't think you know what "apologism" means. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean going, "Sheesh. Another mistake on the part of the government."
Pointing out errors in due process and mishandling of evidence, as well as rather ridiculous and overzealous swat tactics is NOT apologism. It's pointing out facts.
That you don't like it DOES NOT make it apologism. Nor does it make it so things are being spun in Dotcom's favor.
Seriously. Calm down. I know it's hard admitting you're wrong, or that you very much have some kind of bias with people pointing out government fuck-ups, but sheesh. Just say, "You know what? I agree, the government(s) have made some serious errors in the case. As a future lawyer, I only hope that the same standards they attempt to hold others to they be held to themselves. If not more so, seeing as how they are the ones who dole out justice." It's not that hard to say.
But then again, this is you. You couldn't even make it a day without picking on Mike, despite saying you'd leave him alone. Although, in your defense, you weren't specific as to what constitutes leave him alone. Leave it to a lawyer to make sure he leaves himself enough wiggle room with his words to turn "leave him alone" to mean I will continue to insult you day after day, article after article. I just won't direct it at you, Mike.
Stay classy, AJ. And seriously, chill out. That vein in your forehead is throbbing obscenely. I could almost here your voice rising as I read what you wrote. You should definitely reign that emotional outburst in. Wouldn't want people to call you a hypocrite now, would we?
"Rather than just being an angry asshole, why don't you say something productive?"
;)
[ 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:
Once, and only once, did you mention that "Oh, right, they failed to do things according to procedure, and because they uphold the law, that's pretty bad."
Yeah, your point isn't to talk about following procedure. You're just happy that the DOJ is willing to steamroll all procedure just to get their mitts on fat boy. It's not a loss for the DOJ, but you're delusional if you think it makes them look better. Based on the wrong warrant the case has already been pushed back, and with charges of illegal wiretapping under the orders of the FBI, publicly admitted by New Zealand, don't expect this to go down quietly.
"Angry asshole", haha, don't make me laugh. Pointing out your wilful stupidity is not being angry. If anyone's angry, it's you. You're mad because all the illegal procedures are being brought to light and your position of "But but but the LAW!" is looking pretty damn bad. But don't worry - I'm sure hurricane head will pop along at some point and venture to let you join the business of selling spit as Lowery's shoeshine.
[ 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:
secondly, that pesky little principle of due process is not just an optional extra. It is actually a legal principle, and multiple violations of due process by the prosecution may lead to a case being thrown out - this is a principle which applies both in the US and in NZ. In the US in particular, tainted evidence (evidence acquired by illegal means) is simply not permissible in court (look up 'fruit of the poioned tree'). More and more details emerge about the illegality of search warrants and the wiretapping of KDC's internet connection. So even if the DoJ actually has evidence to sustain a prima facie case (we still do not know even that much - the indicment certainly isn't and the DoJ has stonewalled several NZ court orders asking for the evidence), that evidence may no longer be permissible in and American court in particular. So to claim that the curent "mistakes" (of which there is quite a pattern by now) have no effect on the US case shows either wishful thinking or blissful ignorance of how the legal process actully works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One that can't spell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I rezent that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're going to speak English, at least learn to spell correctly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5 in 1?
Now they're just trying to have it go away. They don't really care about the data, or Kim, they just wan to get out alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5 in 1?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damage
I can't see this one ending well for the FBI/DoJ when it is simply the case that they can't withhold innocent third party property. Taking out one corporation and harming a large part of general society should not be happening.
I think the Judge in this case can only make one ruling which is to reunite people with their files. It would then help to point out that those who cause damage get to pay for that damage even if it is the US Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damage
Actually, I would love to see people actually trying to claim their property. It would be really funny to see who tries to collect pirated stuff.
I am also wondering how good a claim people have to "ownership" of the content. What is on Mega should never have been more than a backup at best, so the "owners" would likely have to show that they have an original copy to start with, or some other proof of ownership. I am not clear that they can show true ownership of anything.
There is also a very good argument that, in the data storage world, the stuff is but 1s and 0s, mixed in with other 1s and 0s. Without Mega's in house storage system, there is no simple way to separate the stuff out. It would require an incredibly high cost per user to try to extract the information, which may or may not be in one of many servers in one of many data centers, and may or may not be able to be proven to belong to any one user.
I think all the court said was that this needs a hearing, not just a direct dismissal. I don't think it's saying they don't believe the DOJ or some sort of slap down, just that there is enough here to be worth actually looking at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damage
Not as funny as seeing you actually trying to proof that people only uploaded pirated stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Damage
I didn't say "only pirated stuff". Stop trying to push my argument into a bizarre absolute. That just sucks.
By your standard, I am assuming that absolutely nothing on Mega was pirated, so it's all good just to give it back, right?
Stop being a jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damage
Megaupload also had tools for, and deals with, the major studios to take their stuff down and Megaupload was never even high on their priority list as a result.
Hopefully megabox is the final nail in the RIAA labels coffin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damage
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
oh god, you made me laugh so hard, I almost passed out.
Mega was one of the best places to put your pirated files and get paid when people download them. Thousands of affiliates were working like busy beavers putting up everything they could, and then posting links in every pirate forum and chat board trying to drive people to click so they could get paid.
The system was so effecient that Dotcom himself was using it to launder money. It's amazing that you would ignore it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damage
If anything all that they can do to give this data back is to open mega again for a few days or weeks so that people can get there data back, I see this happening in the near future actually, and this will be a major failure for Hollywood as they will be the ones responsible for the cost.
This case could be the one Hollywood has been dreading, this could be the bear that you do not poke. This could be the last time New Zealand discusses any special actions on there side of the world for any claims by Hollywood.
In the future, I hope, Hollywood will have to take any case to court before any actions can be taken against a torrenting or file sharing site.
New Zealand and others are not going to accept Billion in losses just to support illegal actions on behalf of an entity that walks away at the first site of being held responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q. Where do I donate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOU MUST be BIG MEDIA in order for your content to matter. See; megaupload gets taken out because of having 'copy-written data on their servers illegally'.
Ok fine; but what of the data there that was copy-written and/or the LEGITIMATE property of the uploader?
This is a clear message from the justice system:
If you are BIG MEDIA and someone is even possibly stealing your data, then you get your way - NO QUESTIONS until the court case; properly seized, taken down.
However; if you are a small developer, artist, or musician and was using megaupload to distribute your content as you see fit; then UP YOURS - you have to sue to get your content from the BIG BAD "JUSTICE" system.
So if you aren't big media; don't bother making content; the law won't protect it, it might actually seize it, but maybe... that's just again to protect BIG MEDIA from the small guy being competition, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think a smaller cartel cashing in on copyright and making people miserable.
He had help and those names are easy to find, look where the cartels donated lobbying money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Zealand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine you have a Bank, that a lot of people had accounts in. The President of the bank is accused of fraud by the government, so the DOJ/FBI come in and take over the Bank. They freeze all accounts, lock up the building and say that no one is allowed in. You now have a landlord (Carpathia) that wants to be paid his rent or to be allowed to rent the building out to someone else or even just to have someone pay the utilities bill, but the justice system won't let them. You have the users that want access to their money but are told they can't because they might possibly have some money they obtained illegally mixed in. Somehow, I think the situation would have been handled a lot differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]