New Zealand High Court Orders Kiwi Police & FBI To Return Seized Hard Drives To Kim Dotcom
from the another-failure dept
The investigation and arrest of Kim Dotcom continues to show itself to be an operation that was poorly thought out, where clear liberties were taken by law enforcement who so believed the "Dr. Evil" image that the MPAA set up for them that actually following official procedures seemed of little importance. They really seemed to think that they could do anything and Dotcom would cave. But, as he's challenged a variety of points, and won most of the battles, the carelessness and sloppiness of the whole production keeps getting highlighted over and over again. The latest example: a court has ordered New Zealand police to give Dotcom back "all digital material taken illegally" during the raid, and also "to return anything irrelevant to their investigation" -- and they need to do all of this at their own cost. And, yes, this includes the cloned hard drives that were already sent to the FBI in the US. The court also said that further copies of the cloned hard drives must be destroyed.The judgement, made by chief High Court justice Helen Winkelmann today, says the seizure of devices without sorting them first was unlawful, and that the police have no right to keep irrelevant material.It will be interesting to see how the FBI reacts. Winkelmann told NZ law enforcement that it must inform the FBI of the order. I expect that the FBI will proceed to completely ignore the order, but I imagine that that, too, may complicate the extradition case.
[....] "The warrants could not authorise the permanent seizure of hard drives and digital materials against the possibility that they might contain relevant material, with no obligation to check them for relevance," Winkelmann wrote. "They could not authorise the shipping offshore of those hard drives with no check to see if they contained relevant material. Nor could they authorise keeping the plaintiffs out of their own information, including information irrelevant to the offences."
Just a suggestion for the US DOJ and New Zealand Law Enforcement: next time, before rushing off when Chris Dodd and his buddies point their finger at someone and claim they're "evil," perhaps you should actually follow the law, rather than pretending you're a bunch of cowboys setting up a Hollywood-style raid to make Dodd happy.
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: evidence, extradition, fbi, helen winkelmann, illegal seizures, kim dotcom, new zealand high court, police
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dayyyyyyyyymn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well done, to all involved in the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As this has gone on, I have changed my opinion. Since even with the government cheating they still couldn't come up with a case, I think the odds are that the case was complete BS from the start.
[ 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:
You are apparently unfamiliar with this thing called Twitter.
DotCom has roughly 300,000 followers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nearly every case brought to appease them before this turned into a cluster fook and made the US look stupid and trying to avoid the law.
Anyone wonder if Holder got the AP records to just take the focus off of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe I also read that Kim wanted the drives, not only for defense purposes but because it contained video from his security cameras where he claimed he could prove unwarranted force in his arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who knows, maybe they pulled a Youngblood and claimed that the HDD clones were "accidentally erased" in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video from security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Video from security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Video from security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the video is the least of their worries nowdays.
It would be nice if NZ actually decided to stand up to the US to try and salvage their reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then again, they're still feeling the last time (admitedly, only due to stupid economic/trade policy elements.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
But due process and effective procedures are evolving. The money interests alone ensure that Dotcom's thieving will be ended. I hold that there is also strong public interest in ending this GRIFTING. He's stealing potential income from copyrighted works away from those who created the works.
NONE of the actions of police whether right or wrong, affect the fact that Dotcom has gotten millions by effectively selling what he didn't create. You kids have taken up novel notions that criminals who don't have a US address, or who are difficult to get the evidence on in new areas, who intentionally skirt the law -- in this specific case who willfully remain ignorant of what they're actually selling -- are entirely innocent. You take up the cause of this THIEF because you're little pirates who've an interest in getting the hosted infringed content for free. You cannot make a moral case for Dotcom's busines, only go to the extremes of law and hold that he can skate.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
00:51:10[a-602-1]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
They are the ones pulling the strings. They are the ones who botched the whole operation.
They could've nailed Kim Dotcom for so many things, from tax evasion, to cracking to insider trading to whatever other criminal shit he was involved in.
Instead, they chose copyright infringement. And then botched the whole deal.
Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
That sound horribly like witch hunting, where 'due process' is simply the means of legalizing the burning of the person, and the confiscation of their property.
(Note the Spanish inquisition got to keep the property of witches and heretics.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
What makes you think he was involved in anything like that? Why are you so sure they would've "nailed" him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
He's been involved in all sorts of financial crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Prove it, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Should we hold your entire life history against you and use that to justify breaking the law to make sure you get what you deserve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
The key words being "has been", and you can replace "all sorts of" with "two minor". Bernie Madoff he was not.
But you clearly implied he's currently or recently committed tax evasion, cracking, insider trading and "other criminal shit". Care to back up these big claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
I suspect this is a genuine ootb post, given that it contains most of the usual false claims and the idiotic signature attempt, but who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
He does that all of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Correction: Dotcom is innocent until proven guilty and if, following due process, he is proven guilty then he should be locked up.
I know that you can't stand that people support due process, and you think he should be locked up for vbeing an obnoxious dick who's offended some people (glass houses there, dude), but due process should be followed. That's it. Sorry if that means that people like you have to do things like provide evidence and allow a defense, but that's the world you live in. Totalitarian regimes that lock people up without trial or due process are available, should you wish to move to one.
Stop lying about everything else in this case and, once again, you find you agree with what's actually being said. Stop addressing your fantasies and agree with reality. Yes, even if that means agreeing with Mike.
"NONE of the actions of police whether right or wrong, affect the fact that Dotcom has gotten millions by effectively selling what he didn't create"
Despite your fantasies, none of that has been proven in a court of law. Opinions of an anonymous tosser on the internet are not legally binding.
"You kids have taken up novel notions that criminals who don't have a US address"
No, us adults (there's only one child here, kid) have taken the novel notion that companies who are not located in the US should not be subjected to US law, even if their websites happen be accessed from there. If you don't agree, are you OK with every US-based website being held accountable under Saudi law by the same criteria? If not, you're a hypocritical asshole.
"You take up the cause of this THIEF because you're little pirates who've an interest in getting the hosted infringed content for free."
Stop lying. no matter how much you repeat this, you're not going to make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
As you say - none of that has been proved in court - however it HAS been proved in court that aa number of the major record companies (in Canada I believe) have done exactly that - and yet they are amongst those baying for his blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Ohh you mean the infringing videos that USERS uploaded and shared. yeah maybe he did profit from that a little but I contest that he didn't deprive anyone of income. This is based on a single fact:
THE VIDEOS WERE NOT FOR RENT ANYWHERE ELSE!
I would have an entirely different opinion of Mr Dotcom if there were legitimate streaming sites but they simply don't exist.
How can he possibly be taking income from those who refuse to sell their products?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Point: "But due process and effective procedures are evolving".
Due Process is the application of the law as written and interpreted in the Judicial Review process. Not some evolving desire of non Judicial or non legislative entities.
Point: Dotcom and Megaupload made their money providing a legal service to it's customers, including many various artists who were making money using Megaupload as their distribution network. Megaupload was fully complaint via the provisions of the DMCA.
Point: "You take up the cause of this THIEF because you're little pirates who've an interest in getting the hosted infringed content for free".
Ad Hominem Much?
Point: "You cannot make a moral case for Dotcom's busines, only go to the extremes of law and hold that he can skate".
"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer".
Sir William Blackstone 1765
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".
Benjamin Franklin 1785
As we have seen by recent events by the government of the United States violations of the law and the Constitution are actions taken by it on what seems to be a daily basis.
A full and rigorous adversarial due process is the right of every person that the United States Government seeks to bring criminal charges against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
at least the IRS agents followed due process to get the conviction, unlike the FBI in this case.
This is why the FBI are losing this case.
We can't do away with due process just because authoritarians like you decide that someone is guilty because they have decided this behind closed doors.
Slander and lie all you like, but you'll never win anyone over by insulting them and ignoring the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike's "new business model" (file hosts like Megaupload) is to grift on income streams that should go to content creators -- and then call the creators greedy!
01:57:41[b-250-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Now I am simply laughing my ass off at your puffed-up ego, Blue. That you confuse "driving the comments" with people correcting, disputing & refuting your asinine comments is so typical for you.
Sure, they're simple mindless contradictions just like yapping ankle-biters...
Once again, funny stuff there Blue. I would think you would realize by now that the counter-arguments to your silly statements are not for your benefit anymore, they are for everyone else reading this blog. We all know your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with any facts.
I would guess that most, like me, have also realized that you don't really have the balls to back up your assertions in a healthy debate. You just want to spout crap like it's the gospel truth and obtusely ignore or write-off any counter-arguments as "ankle-biters" so you think you have won the debate. It's sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
I'd have posted "U mad, bro?" but then I realised it was a redundant query. You're nuttier than a fruitcake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
That is one of the funniest lines yet considering how ootb's comments are usually "simple mindless contradictions" of the articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
> resolute criminal, especially one now overseas.
That is why Hollywood still feels it can engage in these and other criminal acts with impunity.
> But due process and effective procedures are evolving.
Yes. Hollywood must be having a fit that people are getting due process.. Like Kim Dotcom is finally getting some due process. Imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
So, when did you stop beating your mother, Blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
You wish! (and what makes you a total ass, BTW).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
The hell they did. They got Dillinger with three rounds of .38 behind the Biograph Theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
He's stealing potential income from copyrighted works away from those who created the works.
NONE of the actions of police whether right or wrong, affect the fact that Dotcom has gotten millions by effectively selling what he didn't create.
And what has the MPAA or RIAA created? They don't create anything themselves, but instead take millions from the artists who do the actual creation. By your own argument everyone in those organizations should be locked up after the exact same due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
The way due process is "evolving" in this case makes it damn scary to live under the jurisdiction of the USDOJ, or the NZ authorities for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Not that NZ doesn't have enough of it's own issues, of course, and one could be forgiven for thinking the current government to be bought and payed for UScorporate puppets (possible, but more likely they're just the same brand of idiot.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
) Content doesn't just appear out of nowhere, someone has to labor to create it. Real $100M movies, unlike the one Mike casually made up for his false example, require thousands of hours of actual physical labor, not least in coordinating the labors of perhaps hundreds. That's up-front money which must be recovered before profit begins, with carrying costs piling up all the time.
) Then Uploader gets hands on the distribution media, alone decides that the work-product of hundreds of people should be "shared"; he ignores printed and in-content visual statements that it's a copyrighted work, intentionally strips off measures meant to prevent copying, and uploads it to:
) File Host, which must pretend utter ignorance of content even while using it to attract eyeballs to third-party advertisements on-site. This of course is the key illegality because the least knowledge that data is actually infringed content while distributing it even with indirect income from advertising is commercial infringement, which even Mike and his fanboys acknowledge is criminal.
) So Links Sites (which also get money from advertising from the draw of infringed content) are the cut-out between knowledge of data on the drives and knowledge that it's infringing. Note that Megaupload did not index its own files. That's to avoid the key connection. -- And of course it's a lie. Had anyone at Megaupload glanced into almost any file hosted, they'd have knowledge of infringed content. -- At this point Mike and fanboys yell: "But no one can possibly know!" -- No, kids, so strong a presumption can be made that files of an entire recent movie IS infringing content that any file host would be legally obligated to remove it. So complete ignorance is claimed.
) Downloader now feels beyond the reach of legalities, doesn't worry about the morality, downloads data fully expecting it to be content of that recent $100M movie, and is very rarely disappointed in that expectation.
So long as steps in the chain are separate, all the criminals involved can claim they're just inside of "legal". But of course all take care to hide identity (often with proxies) and make various excuses to ease conscience, because they've guilty knowledge of removing some income from the actual creators of content. The excuses are immoral. The grifters who didn't put a cent into creating, but only divert the rightful revenue stream to themselves in this symbiotic piracy, are not only immoral but criminal too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Think much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Think much?"
Well, first, I CAN claim that Dotcom is GUILTY without a court trial. The evidence was all over his site: infringing content plus income from advertising and premium speeds. There's no doubt on that point, kids. It's not as though you and I haven't seen the details.
2nd, this AC simply tries to put the burden of proof on me that Dotcom is both immoral and guilty under statute. -- If he's so clearly not guilty, why is he fighting extradition? He could come to the US, demand a speedy trial, and soon enough be out from under this case besides set a precedent for all future, right? But seems he doesn't want to crusade in open court, but to hide behind national borders. -- And he operated over those borders, that's why the US has a case in the first place. Money from the US for premium speeds is exactly doing busines in the US, regardless that he didn't give a physical address where DOJ could serve him.
So, AC, it's up to make the case, on any grounds, that Dotcom operated morally. I say not for reasons given, that you don't even bother to contradict.
Your accusation that I don't want due process even for a known pirate is just wrong. But argument here on the point boils down to "Dotcom is physically outside the US". New procedures need to be made, but lack of those, or violation of current, doesn't legalize anything that Dotcom has done, or IS now doing with Mega. He can still be prosecuted once procedures are clarified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Quote:
Material all over the place? you do understand that a movie is not cocaine right?
If I store a movie I bought on a file locker, is perfectly legal, or are you saying I cannot store my movies that I bought legally in the cloud?
Quote:
Nope, he would not get a fair trial in the US, if the US government was so keen on getting to him as to use completely bogus claims to extradict him and try to get some proof of his guilty, what kind of trial do you think he would get in an American court are you blind?
Quote:
Well at this point in time his pirate status is alleged not confirmed by any court of law now is it?
Further you can't even provide any kind of proof of his alleged criminal activities, except debunked theories that make no sense at all.
What else do you have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Ahh, so the "if you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide" argument. Yup - it's clear to me (and likely everyone else) that with that one statement, you support REMOVING any due process protections.
-- So, AC, it's up to make the case, on any grounds, that Dotcom operated morally. I say not for reasons given, that you don't even bother to contradict.
So he now needs to prove hes' innocent instead? Got it.
Thanks for HELPING to make my point, jackass. It's CLEAR that you DON'T think much (if at all).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Wow. Just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
"Well, first, I CAN claim that Dotcom is GUILTY without a court trial. The evidence was all over his site: infringing content plus income from advertising and premium speeds. There's no doubt on that point, kids. It's not as though you and I haven't seen the details."
That's not evidence, that's your fucking opinion! Megaupload is a business and like all businesses, they operate to earn profit. So they find ways to do that. Just because MU makes money doesn't mean that the actions of their customers adjoins MU as an accomplice to infringement. MU is blameless for the actions of their customers. If you want attack and accuse someone of being a dirty fucking pirate, why don't you point that avarice at the people that fucking uploaded that content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
*shakes head*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
the AC does not simply TRY to put the burden of proof on you, ***the burden of proof was yours to BEGIN WITH***.
The rest falls apart from there, since by your logic he should prove his innocence. Well, you have yet to prove guilt just because you say "I can claim him guilty without a trial" doesn't mean you have proven anything. The evidence "all over his site" was not put there by him, and since the US is bringing the trial, the DMCA applies, and safe harbors applies. The fact that he was advertising and had premium speeds are not related. There is lots of doubt on your points, child.
Put up a legal brief with cited cases and a legal theory.
And please, get over yourself. No one in the world but you believes in the monsters you've made for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
That's good, it means the community effort to give back to him for all the comments he drives is working!
Though I have to admit, he does sound lonely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Maybe he's decided that "justice" in the USA is a farce and that the government is now just a private police force for Hollywood. Don't know how he would get that opinion. Maybe it's because press releases are made from Disney HQ. Or that a woman got charged millions of dollars for the digital equivalent of shoplifting a CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
The many times I have used Megauploads, I did not know that it could be used to download infringing content. I did not care for it to much as I thought the site had to many adds. Either way, if you are so certain that he is guilty then why is it so hard to come up with the proof when they had taken all of the data from Megauploads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Yeah! Why would an innocent person fight being extradited halfway around the world to be tried in a foreign country that blatantly ignored its own and your own country's laws to obtain evidence against you that it won't let you see, while denying you access to any funds to pay for a defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
You have all of the tools required to be a rapist, so you must be one.
You should just hand yourself in to the police and ask to be taken straight to Jail.
No trial is required. No Due Process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Quote:
Which can be recouped even in an enviroment where piracy is rampant, as Hollywood prove every year despite claims to the contrary.
Further a multi billion dollar market exists that does away with "protections" it is called open source have you ever heard of it?
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
Even if we assume that copyright is just and functional, according to common sense the person doing the illegal activity is the one responsible, not the bus company, not the mail company, not the transport company unless you can prove colusion. Can you prove Kim Dotcom colluded with thousands of people to promote piracy?
Rethorical because we all know you can't and apparently FBI can't either.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
So what, many people know that there are crimes done in their neighborhoods, and we actually don't allow people to take the law into their own hands, it almost always ends up baddly, now you want everyone to start acting like vigilants for an industry that can't even prove that they are being harmed?
It is not a problem for other companies or individuals to actually watch after others interests, mostly because third parties cannot know what is legal or illegal, they don't have access to the data to make that kind of decision meaning they are incompetent to actually verify if it is really illegal or not.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
So since when trying to abide by the law is a crime or proof of intent to commit a crime?
Have Megaupload personell glanced at any file they would not know if it was infringing or not, you do understand that those things are used to store personal material, many of which was bought and paid for legally don't you, how can you attest that it is illegal or not? are you an idiot?(rethorical). Further is not their obligation to verify the legality or not of the material being stored, there are no legal obligations to do that, none whatsoever, nowhere in the fraking world and there is a reason for it.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
Downloaders always felt out of reach of legalities, sharing should not be a crime and it is not viewed as such no matter how much BS or propaganda you throw at it, this is a behavior that will not change the reason being, sharing is actually how we cope with life, is how we acquire, experience and discover things, life is a bitch for monopolies I know.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Must not be getting the credits from his corporate masters if his posts don't stay up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Either there is change or we can either imprison most the 1st world or they can go bankrupt. Society has given you the options change or go out of business.
PS interesting how infrequently the huge number of independent producers figures aren't considered by the likes of mpaa . if they were clever they would leave the legacy stuff and jump on the independent support one to ensure there longevity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Either there is change or we can either imprison most the 1st world or they can go bankrupt. Society has given you the options change or go out of business.
PS interesting how infrequently the huge number of independent producers figures aren't considered by the likes of mpaa . if they were clever they would leave the legacy stuff and jump on the independent support one to ensure there longevity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So long suckers.
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message from NZ judge to FBI
You are hereby ordered to destroy any and all digital materials in regards to the Kim Dotcom investigation. Failure to obey this order may result in the NZ court doing absolutely nothing because we are NZ and not the USA, so we don't assume to have authority over any other sovereign nation.
Sorry. Please disregard this order.
Sincerly,
High Court Justice Helen Winkelmann
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Message from NZ judge to FBI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Message from NZ judge to FBI
As much as I'd love it if the NZ people involved were to grow some spines and tell the US to shove off, if they were going to do so, I think they would have done so already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Month
Makes one wonder what is coming next, as the blocks continue to tumble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a millstone for them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not illegal
I can see the reply argument already: none of the material was taken illegally (especially after we changed the law) so we don't have to give it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holding FBI In Contempt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much easier way to handle it
No, what the NZ court should do, and in fact what they should have done already, if the FBI refuses (again) the order from the court, is to declare the refusal good enough grounds to assume that Dotcom would get anything but a fair trial in the US, and deny the extradition request for good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilt is established by due process.
Also, he can (and should) be acquitted regardless of guilt when the justice system fails to respect his rights when trying to prosecute him.
Unless you have inside knowledge of what Dotcom did, he is only allegedly guilty, and is by definition (in most countries) innocent until due process establishes his guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The United States Department of Justice should pay...
Frankly, it'd be nice if we could force them to pay such monies into an internet development fund (because it seems that Dotcom really doesn't need the money) but he would be the natural recipient of the penalty.
Maybe Mr. Dotcom would do us the favor of acquiring an obnoxious throne and a gaudy, grotesque scepter as to remind us of the consequences when departments of justice decide to bend to the will of special corporate interests, and not stick to, say, actually serving the justice of the people.
From what I've seen so far, they haven't learned a thing from it, so yeah, this needs to sting. Make it monetary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#102 and #103 are mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]