That said, I'm not sure how all the servers were ever within the government's possession, custody, or control.
I don't know about possession or custody currently, but they were at one point when the government was able to get "their" evidence. As for control, absolutely, since the USG is not giving the defense the opportunity to investigate the servers or allow Mega the funds to preserve the data.
That's my point. How are the files stored by third parties that aren't at issue is this case "material," i.e., relevant?
I don't know myself either, but the rules of discovery are designed to afford the defendant the opportunity to build a defense. By keeping the servers away from Mega's defense team the USG is effectively crippling the defense and stomping on due process.
I would also think that the server logs themselves would be relevant because that would give clues as to when, where and with whom infringement happened (or didn't happen). Can the defense team be assured that the government has kept them in toto or has the prosecution only saved the ones that help their case?
Going back to your storage unit scenario above, would it fly if the government seized the "supposed" stolen goods from the storage unit and had the rest of the contents destroyed, including the bill of sale that proves the good are not stolen?
What possible evidence could there be? How are a bunch of files stored by third parties relevant? That's what I'm asking.
I could think of a couple things that would be relevant. I believe (haven't looked into this case for a while now) that Dotcom was claiming that some of the files that they are charging him for infringing were ones that the USG told him to keep in place while investigating and building a case against NinjaVideo and never told him he was free to remove them.
Also, wouldn't evidence of complying with DMCA takedowns (even though he wasn't really required to do so) provide evidence that they were attempting to comply with US laws and therefore weaken the conspiracy to commit infringement allegations due to the DMCA safe harbor provisions?
Checking into this further it appears that by having the servers destroyed the USG would be violating Rule 16 which says:
(E) Documents and Objects. Upon a defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and:
(i) the item is material to preparing the defense;
(ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or
(iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant.
It seems to me that all three situations are at play here, so I really don't know how the government can successfully win a trial on this with such blatant disregard for the rules.
I'm saying I don't understand how any of the files he doesn't have could possibly help him. What was on the those servers that could have helped him?
I have no clue myself, but Dotcom's defense team believes there might be.
That aside, doesn't that go against pretty much every rule concerning evidence and discovery? The prosecution never gets to cherry-pick evidence then destroy everything else, does it? I thought rules of discovery required that the defense gets to see ALL of the evidence obtained against them, including that which might help them mount a viable defense. In any other case this type of action would cause a mistrial or at the very least overturn a conviction on appeals, wouldn't it?
This guy was asked to provide identification(in Indiana its required if a police officer asks for ID you give it to them)....
Not quite. This is what Indiana law requires:
Indiana requires either name, address, and date of birth, or driver's license, if on the person's possession, and only applies if the person was stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation. Source
This guy didn't have his driver license on him so was only required to give name, address and date of birth.
Also, this is required ONLY if the person was stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation. Since he wasn't the one driving the car, he wasn't stopped for either of those things.
Again, it wasn't automatic. It was blatant censorship because I was critical of Mike.
To be honest, all of those things you mentioned seem like automatic flags to me. An IP address that gets tons of report clicks - blacklist it. Someone keeps sending a certain keyword over and over again - blacklist that keyword. A link from a unregistered user usually always gets flagged (I know this one from personal experience).
I've try to get him to discuss what happened openly and honestly, but he won't.
Mike's responses to you concerning this have been open and honest. If you feel that someone's responses to you are not open and honest just because it isn't the answer you wanted, that is really your problem, not anyone else's.
This means you're still routing posts from my home IP to the spam filter.
I have no clue how Techdirt's multiple spam filters work, but if I was designing one, any IP address that constantly gets excessive "report" votes would automatically go into the spam filter forever.
Have you ever thought that this is a situation that you've created all by yourself?
I swear, you guys spend more time debating about how real a movie or TV show really is that I think you guys have lost your grip on reality.
Where is this debate about "how real a movie or TV show really is" happening at? It's not here at Techdirt, for sure.
What is being debated here is how real or not is the crap that this O'Brien spews forth concerning his own history and that of his company. Nobody here cares about fictional stuff on a TV show, but do care about someone pushing fictional credentials in real life.
Can you show me this prior art that is "substantially similar," under the appropriate meaning of that test, for this toothpick?
The picture Mike displayed is substantially similar. To an ordinary observer they are both toothpicks with grooves on the end and to an expert in the arts they are still both toothpicks with grooves on the end.
Why do you think they are substantially different?
I'm not a lawyer, much less a patent lawyer, so no surprise if I'm wrong, but I'm not even sure that prior art applies to design patents. I think that what matters is that a design be different than any other design patent already issued.
According to this pretty straightforward description of design patents, prior art is supposed to be examined and the bar is set at whether an "ordinary observer" (as opposed to an expert) would be confused.
Personally, as an ordinary observer, the pictured toothpicks look pretty much like the patented ones to me.
Google literally stands between the online public and the sites. Put a site into a top 5 position for a major keyword, and they can become one of the most popular sites online. Rank them at the back (or worse, stick them in the sandbox / naughty pile) and the chance anyone every finds your site is zero - unless of course you are willing to pay big money for exposure.
I don't agree with that at all. Have you never heard of the Digg Effect?
Yes, Google is massively successful at what they do, but they are not the gatekeepers of the internet, no matter how much you may wish to blame them for everything that happens online.
Do you even realize the irony of you last sentence there? Google provides all this "big money exposure" for free, yet they are still to blame for everything. Crazy.
Google has incredible power over what is and what is not "hot" online. Almost every webmaster, site designer, and programmer is painfully aware of trying to make sites that "please Google", because there is no real alternative.
And my answer to that is: So what? Just because they were successful they somehow all of sudden have a responsibility to prop up every online business out there? Why? What if Google decided to shut down their search offerings tomorrow, would you try to force them to continue it because a bunch of companies are stupidly (IMO) relying on another company's product for survival?
There are alternatives. Search engines existed long before Google came along.
Google has the keys to the castle.
Google BUILT the castle. If you don't like rules of their kingdom, build your own castle.
But you haven't demonstrated that this design is not new. The toothpicks you pictured above are different.
Can you actually show that the pictured ones are not "substantially similar" enough to the patented ones as to not get sued?
Can you actually show that this design is unpatentable?
Can you actually show where it's acceptable, in any sane world, that this design SHOULD be patentable? I know your common sense sometimes gets lost in your strictly legal view of the world, but come on man, this is just plain silly.
Use a different search engine, and install an add blocker.
I do both of those things also.
Given the level of knowledge on how to use a browser and the net in your post I will must also inform you that that bookmarks allow you to return to a site without typing their name into a search engine.
I'm not a real fan of bookmarks. I really don't even know why, but I rarely use them. Probably because I don't often visit the same sites repetitively. Usually it's easier for me to start typing and then selecting the url from the list of urls I've previously visited. That and the sites I do frequent often (like Techdirt) I have RSS feeds set up for.
Okay. Explain to me how to remove the Google search from an Android phone and replace it with a yahoo search - without rooting the phone.
Install the "Yahoo Search" app from GooglePlay and use that instead. Not difficult.
Explain to me how to stop Firefox from sending my incomplete typins to Google as searches (so they can get paid).
This one is also simple. Firefox uses the topmost search engine in the "Manage Search Engines" dialog.
I removed all and replaced with my local YaCy Search url. My mistyped urls don't get sent anywhere except to my computer.
Explain to me how I can surf the web without getting buried under targeted and semi-targeted ads from Google based on the my searches on their search engine - without having to disable other products.
Don't login to Google when you search. I only login into Google for Gmail and then I make sure to logout when done. That definitely helps. I rarely get targeted ads.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about possession or custody currently, but they were at one point when the government was able to get "their" evidence. As for control, absolutely, since the USG is not giving the defense the opportunity to investigate the servers or allow Mega the funds to preserve the data.
That's my point. How are the files stored by third parties that aren't at issue is this case "material," i.e., relevant?
I don't know myself either, but the rules of discovery are designed to afford the defendant the opportunity to build a defense. By keeping the servers away from Mega's defense team the USG is effectively crippling the defense and stomping on due process.
I would also think that the server logs themselves would be relevant because that would give clues as to when, where and with whom infringement happened (or didn't happen). Can the defense team be assured that the government has kept them in toto or has the prosecution only saved the ones that help their case?
Going back to your storage unit scenario above, would it fly if the government seized the "supposed" stolen goods from the storage unit and had the rest of the contents destroyed, including the bill of sale that proves the good are not stolen?
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could think of a couple things that would be relevant. I believe (haven't looked into this case for a while now) that Dotcom was claiming that some of the files that they are charging him for infringing were ones that the USG told him to keep in place while investigating and building a case against NinjaVideo and never told him he was free to remove them.
Also, wouldn't evidence of complying with DMCA takedowns (even though he wasn't really required to do so) provide evidence that they were attempting to comply with US laws and therefore weaken the conspiracy to commit infringement allegations due to the DMCA safe harbor provisions?
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems to me that all three situations are at play here, so I really don't know how the government can successfully win a trial on this with such blatant disregard for the rules.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no clue myself, but Dotcom's defense team believes there might be.
That aside, doesn't that go against pretty much every rule concerning evidence and discovery? The prosecution never gets to cherry-pick evidence then destroy everything else, does it? I thought rules of discovery required that the defense gets to see ALL of the evidence obtained against them, including that which might help them mount a viable defense. In any other case this type of action would cause a mistrial or at the very least overturn a conviction on appeals, wouldn't it?
On the post: Seat Belt Violation Greeted With Spike Strip, Smashed Window And Tasering
Re: This guy had it coming
Not quite. This is what Indiana law requires:
This guy didn't have his driver license on him so was only required to give name, address and date of birth.
Also, this is required ONLY if the person was stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation. Since he wasn't the one driving the car, he wasn't stopped for either of those things.
On the post: DailyDirt: Invisibility Cloaks For Fun (For Now)
Re: I had an invisibility cloak once
On the post: Twitter Sues The US Government For The Right To Disclose Surveillance Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be honest, all of those things you mentioned seem like automatic flags to me. An IP address that gets tons of report clicks - blacklist it. Someone keeps sending a certain keyword over and over again - blacklist that keyword. A link from a unregistered user usually always gets flagged (I know this one from personal experience).
I've try to get him to discuss what happened openly and honestly, but he won't.
Yes he has, repeatedly. Here is the most recent:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140904/09583328416/tor-asks-help-keeping-net-anonymity-as -option-anyone-any-site.shtml#c1219
Mike's responses to you concerning this have been open and honest. If you feel that someone's responses to you are not open and honest just because it isn't the answer you wanted, that is really your problem, not anyone else's.
On the post: Twitter Sues The US Government For The Right To Disclose Surveillance Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no clue how Techdirt's multiple spam filters work, but if I was designing one, any IP address that constantly gets excessive "report" votes would automatically go into the spam filter forever.
Have you ever thought that this is a situation that you've created all by yourself?
On the post: Is Adobe's Ebook Reader Spying On What You Read -- And What You Have On Your Computer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't. I sync my Kindle via the USB cable to Calibre on my computer.
I've never seen the point since my phone already acts as a perfectly fine reader.
I've also used my phone as a reader, but I prefer my Kindle Paperwhite. It's easier on the eyes and is far superior when in direct sunlight.
On the post: FBI Director: The Internet Is The Most Dangerous Parking Lot Imagineable
Re: How am I even alive?
[screeech...boing...boing...click...screeech....ping...dong]
Welcome. You've been DDOSed
On the post: The Mythical And Almost Certainly Made Up 'Legend' Of Walter O'Brien Continues To Grow
Re:
Where is this debate about "how real a movie or TV show really is" happening at? It's not here at Techdirt, for sure.
What is being debated here is how real or not is the crap that this O'Brien spews forth concerning his own history and that of his company. Nobody here cares about fictional stuff on a TV show, but do care about someone pushing fictional credentials in real life.
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not just lines
The picture Mike displayed is substantially similar. To an ordinary observer they are both toothpicks with grooves on the end and to an expert in the arts they are still both toothpicks with grooves on the end.
Why do you think they are substantially different?
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: The confusion of design patents
According to this pretty straightforward description of design patents, prior art is supposed to be examined and the bar is set at whether an "ordinary observer" (as opposed to an expert) would be confused.
Personally, as an ordinary observer, the pictured toothpicks look pretty much like the patented ones to me.
On the post: Google Removes News Snippets From Complaining Publications In Germany; Publications Claim It's 'Blackmail'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I should have read what you quoted more closely..my bad too. :)
On the post: Google Removes News Snippets From Complaining Publications In Germany; Publications Claim It's 'Blackmail'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't agree with that at all. Have you never heard of the Digg Effect?
Yes, Google is massively successful at what they do, but they are not the gatekeepers of the internet, no matter how much you may wish to blame them for everything that happens online.
Do you even realize the irony of you last sentence there? Google provides all this "big money exposure" for free, yet they are still to blame for everything. Crazy.
Google has incredible power over what is and what is not "hot" online. Almost every webmaster, site designer, and programmer is painfully aware of trying to make sites that "please Google", because there is no real alternative.
And my answer to that is: So what? Just because they were successful they somehow all of sudden have a responsibility to prop up every online business out there? Why? What if Google decided to shut down their search offerings tomorrow, would you try to force them to continue it because a bunch of companies are stupidly (IMO) relying on another company's product for survival?
There are alternatives. Search engines existed long before Google came along.
Google has the keys to the castle.
Google BUILT the castle. If you don't like rules of their kingdom, build your own castle.
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not just lines
You wouldn't come to the conclusion that the patent should be invalid when doing a quick search turns up ample prior art?
Will and Lee Obtuse must be your relatives.
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: Re: Re: not just lines
Can you actually show that the pictured ones are not "substantially similar" enough to the patented ones as to not get sued?
Can you actually show that this design is unpatentable?
Can you actually show where it's acceptable, in any sane world, that this design SHOULD be patentable? I know your common sense sometimes gets lost in your strictly legal view of the world, but come on man, this is just plain silly.
On the post: Google Removes News Snippets From Complaining Publications In Germany; Publications Claim It's 'Blackmail'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do both of those things also.
Given the level of knowledge on how to use a browser and the net in your post I will must also inform you that that bookmarks allow you to return to a site without typing their name into a search engine.
I'm not a real fan of bookmarks. I really don't even know why, but I rarely use them. Probably because I don't often visit the same sites repetitively. Usually it's easier for me to start typing and then selecting the url from the list of urls I've previously visited. That and the sites I do frequent often (like Techdirt) I have RSS feeds set up for.
On the post: Google Removes News Snippets From Complaining Publications In Germany; Publications Claim It's 'Blackmail'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basing the majority of your business model upon another company's product is not the brightest move under any circumstances.
If I ran a newspaper recycling business, could I force the newspapers to produce more dead-tree versions to keep my business profitable?
On the post: Google Removes News Snippets From Complaining Publications In Germany; Publications Claim It's 'Blackmail'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Install the "Yahoo Search" app from GooglePlay and use that instead. Not difficult.
Explain to me how to stop Firefox from sending my incomplete typins to Google as searches (so they can get paid).
This one is also simple. Firefox uses the topmost search engine in the "Manage Search Engines" dialog.
I removed all and replaced with my local YaCy Search url. My mistyped urls don't get sent anywhere except to my computer.
Explain to me how I can surf the web without getting buried under targeted and semi-targeted ads from Google based on the my searches on their search engine - without having to disable other products.
Don't login to Google when you search. I only login into Google for Gmail and then I make sure to logout when done. That definitely helps. I rarely get targeted ads.
Next >>