MPAA & Megaupload Want In On Hearing Over Whether Former User Can Get His Data Back
from the jockeying dept
In the ongoing saga of all of the Megaupload servers that the federal government seized and then handed back to hosting company Carpathia, telling them to effectively destroy them (and with it all sorts of important evidence in the Megaupload case), the judge is considering holding a hearing to dig into some of the questions raised by the case -- leading a few motions to be filed. The first, of course is by Kyle Goodwin, represented by the EFF, over his desire to get his data back. The filing also raises significant questions about the entire situation:... the available record already shows that the government acted (and continues to act) with a callous disregard for third-party property rights in data stored on Megaupload. For example, the government knew Megaupload operated a data storage business, and thus held the property of third parties lawfully using Megaupload’s storage services. The government knew its search and seizure of Megaupload’s assets would deprive such third parties of the ability to access and retrieve their property. In seizing domain names and executing the search warrant at Carpathia, the government took constructive possession of all the third-party owned data it had seized and to which it had prevented (and continues to prevent) access by their owners. The government then “released” the third-party owned data in a manner that deliberately made the data both inaccessible to property owners and subject to government-sanctioned destruction, while at the same time blocking all reasonable efforts to allow access.Of course, Goodwin isn't the only one asking the court to pay attention. Megaupload itself pointed out that it should be included in any such hearing, even though it's technically outside of this part of the dispute. It notes that if the courts order the data retrieval, someone who understands what's on the servers and how to find the relevant material would be helpful. Furthermore, the company is concerned about how the servers will be handled, since it still believes there's useful evidence there that the DOJ appears to want to destroy.
These failings are striking given that the government is well familiar with the need to accommodate third-party Fourth Amendment rights through minimization when it executes searches and seizures, especially of electronic material.
Of course, if Megaupload is filing for something, you shouldn't be surprised to find out that the MPAA is right behind with its own filing, warning that it wants to be sure that the court magically make sure that no infringement occurs if anyone can access their backup data. We've heard this story before, but here it goes again.
... any remedy granted should not compound the massive infringing conduct already at issue in this criminal litigation.... Additionally, if it would be helpful to the Court to consider evidence from the MPAA or its members on such issues as the lack of authorization for the reproduction and/or distribution of their works via Megaupload, or the overwhelming amount of infringement of the MPAA members’ copyrighted work on Megaupload, they will of course cooperate.Of course, the issue right here has nothing to do with the MPAA's fears about infringement. It's about getting someone back the legitimate data they have on the servers. Why would the MPAA fight so hard against that?
I would imagine this is going to drag on for a while.
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: kyle goodwin
Companies: megaupload, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
Anyway, just baloney. But cue whiny pirate excuses in 3..2..1...ARRR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
Achievement unlocked: Green Badge of Foolish!
Yep, it's absolutely certain the users who cannot access their data made millions off of Megaupload...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
has no clue
He's just a troll
who should shut his pie hole
He can't even read what's written
By a black widow I wish he'd get bitten
And that's all I got so far. If anyone would like to add more to that, feel free.
Basically, stfu troll. You didn't even state a single fact and you have none to back up your completely fabricated assertions about users and a site you know nothing of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
His posts have become pure nonsense and he knows it. But how could he resist, given how many responses he gets? He's like Marilyn Manson putting on eyeliner to shock the squares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
Many people used Megaupload for perfectly legitimate reasons. As a storage place for their own records, and to distribute their own legally created software. These are all people who were hurt when Megaupload was raided.
Yes, infringing content was placed there. I am not saying that it wasn't used for infringement, but the innocent should not have to pay for the crimes of the guilty. After all, how would you feel if your car was taken by the police because a similar car three states over was used as a getaway vehicle in a crime. After all, all makes and models of that vehicle are obviously used for criminal enterprise right?
This is the same argument, and then there are shills and trolls like you, who say that it's ok. No it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
MPAA's filing asks the court to not 'Compound the massive infringing conduct..." of Megaupload. I would posit that giving users the ability to request specific files, perhaps after being given access to a directory listing of their stored content, could provide a clear suggestion of who is looking for legitimate, legal data, and who is looking for infringing content. That would really take the wind out of the sails of us pirate apologists, leaving only the sizable infringing content to remain right?
Then again, given the volume of data and files the government probably acted the way it did because there is no quick, efficent way to dump all the non-infringing content. And no way to determine how much of it is infringeing. As indicated by the MPAA itself, who has argued that there is too much content for them to introduce human examination of all potentially infringing content. Then again, supposedly Google has a way to figure it out, right? they should be able to whip up a filter in minutes, and run it for a week and you get the new non-infringing data.
So why can't I get my old code back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
Wait, what?
I thought it was "guilty until DNA evidence proves otherwise"?
At least according to Law and Order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
Money Saved Does Not Equal Money Spent.
If I refrain from buying a $30 steak at a 5 star restuarant and instead cook an $8 steak myself, I did not earn $22 dollars. Where would that money even come from? If it worked like that I would be cooking lots of $8 steaks every hour making thousands of dollars a day.
So why would someone who did not spend money on an item, magically create millions of dollars for someone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
'Oh looks its on offer, 2 for only £20!'
'Yes dear but it is £0 if we don't buy, and who the fuck needs 2 ironing boards?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
Way to go looking greedy, but in reality people spend as much as they can when they can , now if you took the full population and the amount they spent on entertainment every year throught the world it would be less than $1 per person. So to compensate them for there work i believe that a legal service that charges a maximum of $5 a year for access should more than compensate the studios for there work, in fact that would not only compensate them it would be giving them,after the profits by he website probably double the money they had made under the old system.
Now i agree that not everyone will want to pay $5 for access to everything ever created, but over time it will become the norm, where more and more people will join and profits will sore. Yes at first it will not make enough as initially you will not have many member's but over time business will improve, and that is what happens when there is a disruption to a system, as in the case of scribes and printing press.Forget creating a tax as that would funnel the money to those who do not deserve it, and would not give Hollywood any incentive to create new movies.
It might take the likes of Hollywood and there ilk a few years to generate the income they are used to but it will stop the bleeding and start the healing.
Let them survive on the trillions they earn from cinemas and other methods of ripping the customers off, but sharing is something that is not going away and the sooner they start accepting this the sooner they can start improving the future outlook on there content...
Just as a endnote, If they do not stop what they are doing now they could be the threat to Hollywood in the near future to losing total control over any form of media. Where the MPAA will be looked at as a joke when another organisation takes over from them, and where more movies are made outside the system than in it.
Maybe this is where we need to start actually , with creating a new organisation that takes over from the MPAA, an organisation that looks at all movie created and rates it for whatever audience it deserves.
That I think would be a massive step in replacing the MPAA and the real start of removing power from those that are destroying the industry by holding on to the power they have for dear life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh. Technical complaint by some idiot alleging "lost his" data".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because they will do anything rather than admit that there's legitimate data on those servers...because then shit starts unravelling, the servers have to be brought back up, and the whole narrative starts to unravel into class action liability suits and countersuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So obviously the MPAA thinks that's what the user is after, because the user wants to be caught.
This is like bearded lady at a side show screaming about everyone looking at her is a danger to her safety because there is no way they could resist her feminine wiles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some of this has to be sarcastic... but i can't tell which bit.
pretty sure that's an achievement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless this is a remarkable plant by the MPAA and they've loaded this guy's account with illegal stuff to prove a "Look! Pirate!" point, it doesn't seem like it's worth his time unless it's legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
legitimate content, part of his business, but by a strict reading (through the eyes of the lawyers) it means he's a dirty fucking pirate and all the value is in those songs, which he had no right to use.
Whereas any reasonable person would say " oh, he put music on as background for the streams, well of course he did, that's what people do, you idiot"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More on the case
According to the TorrentFreak report, Goodwin is alleged to have partially unauthorized music files as part of his data. Whoops, if true.
What's more troubling is that he's also getting some pushback from the US on videos he created that contain music, because they aren't sure if all of the music on them is properly licensed.
The US team has combed through his data to find any evidence of POTENTIAL infringement - not actual, POTENTIAL - as an excuse to not return it. Their proposal is that he be punished because they don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More on the case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More on the case
Through the illegal copies of the data they made? Oh wait, I'm not even sure if they have ACCESS to the full servers. I'm inclined to believe they're just pulling things out of their ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear MPAA:
Cue disingenuousity music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear MPAA:
You mean MegaUpload was not the universal and sole repository of all things evil, infringing, and just plain wrong to the business plans of self serving corporate dinosaurs?
Surely thou jest! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear MPAA:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course they won't stop ! And of course the Damn Fucking MAFIAA stands right behind them cracking a whip.
MAFIAA wants to shut down whatever they can because they ultimately want to control all content and they have no souls when it comes to fairness.
What do you think will happen if SCOTUS Rules in favor of big ripoff book publisher in the big case that can determine if you even own something you buy and you want to sell it used.
FUCK YOU MAFIAA..............You will never see a dime out of my wallet assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What are wallet assholes? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What are wallet assholes? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government hold a box, it holds a legal object and an illegal object. If it lets one out it has to let the other out as well.
The legal object is one-of-a-kind. The illegal object is one copy of millions.
What's more important, opening that box, or destroying it?
[ 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:
All the illegal stuff in that box was out in the open for years before the box is close, and is still out there despite the box being closed, so opening the box for a month will have absolutely no effect on anything except to shame the government.
There was never a justification for closing the box in the first place without adequate warning to the people keeping stuff in the box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate apologist much? Exactly what "important evidence" is the government hiding from Megaupload? NONE. Absolutely, positively NONE. Not even Megaupload's own lawyer can identify any relevant evidence that's being withheld. What a fucking joke. If the evidence is so "important," it would be easily identified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Prove it.
Prove that there's no important evidence being withheld.
You have to prove it without looking at any files on Megaupload.
"If the evidence is so "important," it would be easily identified."
Of course. I'll just call Charles Xavier to find the answers.
After all, every lawyer team has a psychic on hand to read people's minds, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why are you so sure of that? It would seem that the contents of what was actually stored on the servers is pretty important in showing substantial legitimate uses of the service.
Not even Megaupload's own lawyer can identify any relevant evidence that's being withheld.
Hard to "identify evidence" when the details are all being withheld.
Funny, though, that you're so sure you know what's on the servers. Hilarious.
If the evidence is so "important," it would be easily identified.
Considering they can't see it, how the hell can they "identify" it?
Also, drop the ad hominems please. It's really unbecoming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LMAO! You are only confirming what I said: You can't identify any relevant evidence that is being withheld. You said there was "all sorts of important evidence" on the servers. You still have not, and cannot, identify what that evidence is
Dotcom himself can't identify any evidence that he doesn't have access to. Of course the service can be used for non-infringing purposes. The government has not argued otherwise, nor would they because it's obviously true.
This is just desperate pirate-apologism.
Hard to "identify evidence" when the details are all being withheld.
Funny, though, that you're so sure you know what's on the servers. Hilarious.
What's on the servers are the files store by the users of the service, some of which are infringing and some of which aren't. If there was something on there that would help his case, such as an email or a document, then he would say, "I need that evidence!" Not even Dotcom can identify any such evidence.
So, please, Pirate Mike, explain to me EXACTLY what evidence is being withheld. You can't. Not even Dotcom can. Why? Because there is none.
Considering they can't see it, how the hell can they "identify" it?
Also, drop the ad hominems please. It's really unbecoming.
If there was any evidence that could help him, such as emails or documents, he would know about there existence already. Looking at MILLIONS of gigabytes of data stored by the users of the service will not prove anything relevant to the case.
I'll drop the ad homs the day you man up and actually have a conversation with me where you don't run away like a little child who knows he got caught.
The fact remains, you said, definitely, that there is in fact "all sorts of important evidence." I called you out on it. Rather than just admit that you can't identify even one single piece of important evidence, you keep digging the whole and defending your pirate buddy.
Want me to respect you? Admit that you can't identify even one piece of important evidence and that your claim to the contrary that such evidence exists and is being withheld was baseless. I know you are incapable of such honesty.
[ 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:
Rather telling. I think I'm going to sue you based on some secret evidence I got here that nobody can check. Sounds very fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'It's about getting someone back the legitimate data they have on the servers. Why would the MPAA fight so hard against that?'
obviously, because they are shit scared of Mega's lawyers finding information that is trying to be kept from them, like who ordered the whole fiasco in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also seriously doubt the EFF would have taken Goodwin on as their Litmus test case if there were any signs or indications of impropriety on Goodwin's part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real story
They also don't want to admit that even one byte of data on Megaupload is non-infringing content.
Expect them to fight like a wounded, cornered animal, because that's what they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy
The first thing I want to see the court do is rightfully declare that a persons access to his legally owned material is more important than fishing expeditions.
Secondly
The right to have access to your own material superceeds the right of the DOJ to seize anything in the forfeiture laws in America. If i am visiting a criminal at his home and my car is parked in the driveway it cannot be seized as it is not and never was used for any criminal intent and is not and never has been the property of the accused.
Thirdly
The material that is illegal has to be pointed out to the court and that can be destroyed, it is up to the MPAA to provide proof that any data is illegal and not up to the user to prove that his content is legal or illegal.
And finally, the period that material has been kept from the user that stored legal content should be taken into consideration when giving each and every user compensation for the loss to there data, which was don under the assumption that they had committed a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask Carpathia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]