Unsealed Megaupload Seizure Warrants Reveal Use Of Flawed Logic... And An 'Undercover Computer'
from the did-it-wear-a-mustache dept
Last month, we wrote about how the EFF, representing Kyle Goodwin, had asked the US district court handling the Megaupload case to unseal the warrants for the seizures of Megauploads domains and servers. The court has now ordered the documents unsealed. To be honest, there isn't too much surprising in them. There are some huge leaps to assume that hosting a cloud service somehow makes you criminally liable for what people do on that service. In fact, part of it ridiculously argues that the "proof" of criminality is the fact that the DOJ had alerted Megaupload to some infringing files, and those files had not been taken down. However, as Megaupload's lawyer points out, the "alert" was in the form of asking for cooperation, which Megaupload granted, and not to "interfere" in the investigation. Taking down the videos would be interfering. Megaupload's lawyer, Ira Rothken explained to CNET:"MegaUpload was served with a criminal search warrant for alleged third-party user conduct and was advised not to interfere with that criminal investigation or with the files -- as such disclosure, would jeopardize the ongoing investigation. To ask MegaUpload to cooperate and then use that cooperation against them, to us seems to be both unfair and misleading."Most of the argument in the warrants is just repeating the already questionable claims in the indictment -- which is what you'd expect. They're also not all that different from previous domain seizure requests -- with a few notable exceptions. First, you'll notice that the special agent who conducted the investigation has all personal information redacted. Apparently the Justice Department would prefer that its agent not receive the ridicule that the agent who made myriad mistakes in earlier domain seizures received.
But what was really amusing was the description of the investigation, which apparently involved an "undercover computer."
Using an undercover computer, [redacted] observed how a visitor may view content hosted on Megaupload.com. For example, on November 20, 2011, [redacted] observed the copyrighted picture "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," which was released in 2008 by The Weinstein Company, on the website Megavideo.com.I'm still trying to figure out just what an "undercover computer" is -- and where I can buy one. Also, seems kind of random to choose Zack and Miri as the sample file to download -- especially given the director/writer of that particular movie, Kevin Smith, has talked extensively about how he believes "piracy" actually helps him gain more fans. Yes, the film's copyright is held by The Weinstein Company -- whose owners appear to have a slightly less enlightened view of infringement -- but it still seems like an odd choice.
In addition to those oddities, there are some other claims within the filings that don't make much sense. They make the argument that seizure is necessary with claims that are, simply speaking, not true:
Neither a restraining order nor an injunction is sufficient to guarantee the availability of the Subject Domain Names for forfeiture. By seizing the Subject Domain Names and redirecting them to another website, the United States will prevent supporters of the Mega Conspiracy or third parties from redirecting the Subject Domain Names to servers elsewhere in the world, and thus using them to commit additional crimes. Furthermore, seizure of the Subject Domain Names will prevent visitors from continuing to access the websites located at the Subject Domain Names.To put it simply: that makes no sense. Either a restraining order or an injunction would, in fact, prevent those other things from happening. Yes, Megaupload could have ignored the two, but then it would face additional charges for ignoring the court. Given that Megaupload had repeatedly engaged in various lawsuits against it in the US before, there was simply no evidence that Megaupload would directly ignore the court and, as such, face additional charges.
Finally, the documents also show the DOJ's request for these documents to be sealed. You can understand why they wanted the warrants sealed prior to the takedowns and arrests happening. But those all took place within a week of the seizures being approved by the judge. There was no reason to keep them under seal. Yet the DOJ claims that it "has considered alternatives less drastic than sealing, including, for example, the possibility of redactions, and has determined that none would suffice to protect this investigation." That is, of course, empirically and definitively false because we've now seen the unsealed and redacted document and they do nothing to endanger the investigation (other than, perhaps, revealing the weaknesses of the DOJ's arguments).
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: copyright, criminal copyright, forefeiture, investigations, seizure
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
looks like a week case now
if this is all the evidence, then we as kiwis owe dotcom an apology, and you yanks owe him a alot of money.
xploder
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple enough really
If they had said 'Agent X used a computer to gather evidence', that almost sounds clerical. However if instead it's 'Agent X used an undercover computer to gather evidence', why, that almost sounds straight out of a spy movie! And given who was giving the orders for the whole thing, of course they wanted it to look as flashy as possible!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
:) js kd
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Undercover plant
Just like the FBI creating terrorist plots to thwart, what proof is there that Hollywood hasn't done the same thing here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Could it be.......no, im just imagining the worse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qnd-hdmgfk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
"There are some huge leaps to assume that hosting a cloud service somehow makes you criminally liable for what people do on that service." -- It's a clever dodge, but no, Mike: the people at Megaupload are responsible for what THEY did. It's beyond belief that they didn't have a clue there was copyrighted material on the sight when the least glance at filenames should have prompted a look. They've SOME responsiblity to spot-check here and there: it's absent. You're maintaining their sheerly legalistic fiction that they're entirely innocent, clueless aobut their own biz. Add in getting income from the draw of someone else's valuables, and it's an easy moral case, even if pesky law isn't yet ready to handle the loopholes in copyright. But as I told you last year, Big Media ain't gonna stand still and let that go on forever.
"Neither a restraining order nor an injunction is sufficient to guarantee the availability of the Subject Domain Names for forfeiture." -- Now, Mike, at other times you'd brag that Pirate Bay has conclusively shown that true, keeps popping up while being chased.
BTW: Dotcom's recent statements about using encryption and making it more difficult for DOJ next time should get his bond canceled and him into jail for the interim.
All hail Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
To properly honor Mike, I propose "Masnick Defect" as term for out-of-bounds self-aggrandizement such as years of trying to turn a single quip into fame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
Your handlers should find someone a little smarter to spin their bullshit a little more intelligently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Protecting the investigation
You got it right there at the end - it DOES endanger the investigation... it's in danger of being laughed right out of the courts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
Honestly, the fact that the government is willing to demand that other countries deploy SWAT teams on people without warning would give anyone a reason to go into further hiding. I think, in fact, that I'll do just that. Want to sic your precious DOJ on me?
"Pesky law"? Tough tits. You argue that it's immoral precisely because it's against the law. If the law doesn't cover it, it's not immoral and it's definitely not illegal.
Want to know why you don't have $100 million dollar movies, out_of_the_ass? They go to pay for laws that you masturbate to, you walking industry cum dumpster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Oh, and it keeps trying to stab me in the back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Protecting the investigation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But then even with emails admitting how deep the corruption was a GS, they found no evidence of wrong doing... but where there was no wrong doing in the Mega case they invented bunches.
Justice... You're doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I couldn't resist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well I am now starting to believe that NZ could well deny extraditing them off to the USA. The FBI/DoJ now have such a small case that at worst he could get be fined and certainly not prison time or company shut down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
Only New Zealand can cancel his bail and put him back into jail if it is warranted for them to do so but as he hasn't broken any laws in New Zealand then this will never happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
Actually, upon downloading it and double clicking it, shows it to be a JPEG, of someone winking and giving a one fingered salute.
Why is it you remain completely incapable (and I do mean COMPLETELY) of formulating even a half-way decent argument in support of copyright? I mean...file names are supposed to be an indicator of copyright infringement? Really? Not only that, but Megaupload was supposed to do spot-checks? Last I heard, those who use lockers, whether cyber or not, are entitled to privacy. A company scouring its lockers, which are full of private information (whether infringing on copyright or not doesn't matter at that point) is in and of itself ILLEGAL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I couldn't resist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eA3XCvrK90
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Look at poor Rapidshare, they have bent themselves into a pretzel to meet every single insane demand and they are still on the naughty list every freaking time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Government monitoring
Now think about that. If he had been downloading it for 10-15 years and was caught only because of a computer repairman, maybe the government isn't monitoring the internet as much as some people think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Government monitoring
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
As cheezy as it is to paraphrase from Star Wars, in this case it's quite appropriate. The more "Big Media" try to tighten their grip on control of content, the more consumers, customers and income will slip through their fingers. Those days are over, and it's the public that ain't gonna stand still and let that go on forever.
"BTW: Dotcom's recent statements about using encryption and making it more difficult for DOJ next time should get his bond canceled and him into jail for the interim."
Can you explain how making statements about future legal behaviour could possibly be used to have bail revoked? Your reasons should be entertaining if nothing else...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackasses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: After milking this so long, you got bupkus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Undercover Computer
You can buy these from shady dealers on eBay. They are typically "Apple" computers of some kind. Frequently a MacBook that is made entirely of plastic with stick on apple logos.
Search for "Louis Vuitton" and find a seller that also sells computers. You may even find a deal in which you get a very expensive handbag along with your high-end laptop. You may, however, have to wait for it to all ship from Hong Kong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Undercover Computers
It's simple. We have them in my agency, too.
It's just a computer that doesn't trace back to the police or the government. Used in investigations where it's not desirable that the target know the police are visiting his site. The IP address routes through a commercial (rather than government) ISP and comes back to a fictitious individual. No different than an undercover phone line that doesn't pop up as "NYPD" or "Department of Justice" on the bad guy's caller ID.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Undercover Computers
[ link to this | view in thread ]