Note that the contemporaneity is with respect to the retransmission that reaches the end-user, not with the originating broadcast that is being retransmitted. Distributing a DVD is not a performance because there's no contemporaneous perceptibility.
You mean like the ones I watch on my cable-company provided DVR?
Not all delayed transmissions are the same. Does your cable company have a license for the DVR transmissions? Is it a set-top box? You haven't given me enough information.
Yeah, how dare they try to comply with the new legal ruling.
It's not about complying with the ruling. The ruling said nothing about whether Aereo is a cable system under Section 111, and it said nothing about the delayed transmissions. There's nothing in the opinion about these two issues to comply with. Keep in mind that we're just getting Mike's exaggerated, and unsupported, FUD. Journalism!
I've got to admit that the holier than thou attitude around here is getting pretty hard to bear. I've been visiting this site for a couple of years now and while they do do a great job shining a spotlight on many of the problems plaguing the world, their positions are quite often undermined by their arrogance - especially when they don't fully understand the topic they're railing against.
I've seen their arguments dismantled and tossed to the wind so many times on other sites a healthy dose of modesty could go a long way to ensuring they don't lose their audience completely. Or rather, ensuring they keep the intelligent ones coming back and discussing the topics. (Their unending stream of clickbait headlines pretty much guarantees that they will always have an audience, but perhaps not the audience they want.)
Again, great topics here, just dial down the petulance a bit.
The arrogance is all the more ridiculous because the grasp of the subject matter is often so weak. I agree. Drop the "holier than thou" attitude, and this place would be a lot more pleasant--and productive. If anything, though, it's moving in the other direction. Form trumps substance here in a sad way.
When the Supreme Court ruling in the Aereo case came out, we noted that beyond the bizarre "looks like a duck" test that the Supreme Court made up on the spot, it also appeared to leave open the possibility that Aereo could survive if it simply added a mere delay to its streaming. That's because a key part of the "looks like a duck" test to make Aereo's service a "public performance" was that the shows were streamed "contemporaneously."
Can you point to the language in the opinion that makes you think Aereo can escape liability by simply delaying the transmissions? Legal arguments are generally more persuasive when you back them up with primary sources. That said, based on your prior post, I don't think you understand the contemporaneity issue. It's not that the retransmission has to be contemporaneous with the original transmission. What makes it a performance is that the retransmission can be viewed contemporaneously as it's sent. For example, downloading a file from a storage locker is not a performance. Streaming a file from YouTube, on the other hand, is. YouTube sends the file such that it can be viewed contemporaneously. The storage locker does not.
All of the proposed alternatives by Aereo are clearly in direct response to the Supreme Court's specific "looks like a duck" ruling. Aereo isn't trying to challenge that, it's looking to work within the rules the Court established. Yet, once again, we see people taking Aereo's efforts at complying with the specific law as laid out by the courts, and interpreting it as somehow circumventing the law.
And you were just earlier today complaining earlier today about "journalists" exaggerating. The Court did not say that Aereo is a cable system as that term is used in Section 111, so Aereo is not trying "to work within the rules the Court established." Nor did the Court say that the delayed transmissions would be different. If anything, its analysis of the live transmissions indicates that the delayed transmissions are infringing. So your whole point is an exaggerated straw man (as it so often is--journalism!).
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.
Yes! I forgot about that. Thanks! If true, that certainly cuts in Dotcom's favor. But, I have to ask, are those particular files among the ones that the government says are criminally infringing? My point is that, while I'm sure there's some examples of Dotcom "doing the right thing," I don't see how those examples explain away the times when he allegedly didn't. You can't point to all the times you didn't break the law to defend the times you didn't. "Well, I didn't sell cocaine to Person X" doesn't excuse the time you sold cocaine to Person Y.
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?
That's another great point. I honestly don't know how the DMCA applies in a criminal case. I haven't thought about it, and I don't think the issue has been litigated. That said, the government contends that Dotcom did acts that would make the DMCA safe harbors not apply--even if they potentially did.
Right. Substantive arguments like calling him (and everybody else here) a bunch of thieves and/or pro-piracy. For the record, I don't think I've ever seen you back up your personal attacks and accusations with substantive arguments. It's just name-calling.
I think Mike is obviously pro-piracy, and this post is probative of that conclusion. He just recites Dotcom's arguments, with no examination of the merits of those arguments, verbatim. Yet, he's completely skeptical of everything the government says about Dotcom. Why is he so skeptical of every single thing the government says, yet so completely fawning of whatever Dotcom's lawyers argue? My suggestion: Because he's pro-piracy, and he loves Dotcom. That's substance, not name-calling. Has Mike ever even mentioned the remote possibility that something Dotcom argued Mike possibly be wrong? Of course not. Mike doesn't do substance. He does form. And "protecting" his "friend" Dotcom takes precedence over substance all day long on TD, IMO.
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.
Source
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.
Thanks for looking that up. Crim Pro is not something I know much about. That said, I'm not sure how all the servers were ever within the government's possession, custody, or control. And even if they were, my question is how the files were "material to preparing the defense," intended to be used in the government's "case-in-chief at trial," or "obtained from or belong[ed] to the defendant." That's my point. How are the files stored by third parties that aren't at issue is this case "material," i.e., relevant?
The forfeiture of those assets, property etc. can only occur when Dotcom has been convicted and found guilty and not before a conviction.
Thanks for the comment. There's two types of forfeitures, criminal and civil. Criminal forfeiture, which is what I think you're thinking of, happens after conviction. Civil forfeiture, which is what this is, can happen before conviction. The government just has to show that the property is forfeitable by a preponderance of the evidence.
Oh look, you found a way to slip in your classic 'Mike's too cowardly to debate me' line by trying to disguise it as a generality. How completely unexpected! /s
Mike doesn't defend his nonsense when called out on it. And it's not just when I do it. This AC called Mike out, and, as I predicted, Mike was silent. Was I wrong?
And look at that, another personal attack.
This is why your comments get reported AJ, because 99% of the time you seem to have the digital version of Tourretts, and find it impossible not to insult someone(usually Mike).
(As an aside, I find it rather funny that you're accusing Mike of 'regurgitating Dotcom's arguments, when you seem to be doing the exact same regarding the DOJ's. Double standards much?)
I do challenge Mike, substantively and personally. So what? I disagree with what he says, and I explain why I think he's wrong. I think he's selectively skeptical, and I point that out. That's me stating an opinion, and I'm happy to back up my opinion with substantive argument. That should be celebrated, not punished. Debate is a good thing. Dissent is a good thing. It's unreal that I have to defend the fact that I have an opinion that I defend. WTF?
And I don't just regurgitate what the government says. I've stated above that I think Dotcom makes a good point about what works were allegedly infringed, and more importantly, where those infringements allegedly took place. The government may well have the evidence, but I haven't seen it yet. But that's not surprising, as we're still at the very early stages. I think the government has probably said enough to get past a motion to dismiss, but I don't think they've shown enough to get a conviction. I'd love to have all the evidence now, but we don't.
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?
Well, it's not a matter of the government having the evidence and refusing to turn it over. I think a good analogy would be if I rent a storage locker and keep evidence of my crime in there along with a bunch of crap. If the government searches the locker and seizes the evidence, but then leaves the crap, I can't complain that the evidence is being kept from me if the government chooses to not pay the rent so my crap stays in the locker. The owner of the locker can auction off my crap or throw it away, and that doesn't affect my legal case.
But it's the fact that keeping relevant, exculpatory evidence from Dotcom would undermine the government's case that makes me skeptical of Dotcom's argument that there's anything relevant being kept from him. Aren't the servers just full of files stored by third parties? How do those third-party files help Dotcom? Unless the government is claiming those files are infringing, I don't see how they matter. They're the crap I let my friend store in my locker. They don't have anything to do with my legal case. I can't point to the legal crap I kept in the locker to escape liability for the evidence of the crimes that I also kept there.
What possible evidence could there be? How are a bunch of files stored by third parties relevant? That's what I'm asking.
If the US already has possession/control of Dotcoms assets, property etc. then they would have no reason to file a forfeiture claim being as they already have possession/control etc. to do what they like with it.
The fact that the US have filed for a forfeiture claim shows that they do not have the right to control/possession of the assets, property etc. in question to do what they like with.
It's a two-step process. First the government demonstrates to the court that there's probable cause to seize the property (for example, if the property is the fruit or instrumentality of a crime). The court issues a warrant and takes either actual or constructive possession of the property. Then the government demonstrates to the court that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the property which has already been seized should also be forfeited. The seizure is temporary. The forfeiture is permanent. Dotcom's assets were already seized when the court issued the warrants (which the foreign jurisdictions enforced). The issue now is whether Dotcom should lose those assets permanently.
If the defense is allowed access to the same servers, they can present the opposite, showing the 40 clearly not infringing, and 20 'maybes', to show that the service was primarily being used for 'legitimate' files.
I don't see how the government's case changes one iota even if it concedes that there were millions of files that were lost that are all noninfringing. The case isn't about those files. It's about the files that are the works-in-suit. Dotcom can't point to the files that are noninfringing to prove anything about the files that aren't. Even if every single file that's gone is noninfringing, that doesn't change a thing.
The Government has illegal copies of the data that they were told that they were not allowed to have.
I haven't really followed that closely. I know at first the court said the warrant was faulty, but then an appeals court said it wasn't. Yet, the appeals court agreed that the drives shouldn't have been turned over to the U.S. But even if the New Zealand government shouldn't have turned them over to the U.S., I don't see how that makes them inadmissible in the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. got the evidence it needed for the indictment from the U.S.-based servers, and there's no argument that the warrant in the U.S. is faulty that I know of.
Mike, while I share many of your concerns about forfeiture and the use of government authority more generally, you're just mistaken about what copyright law, and especially criminal copyright law, actually says. You repeatedly claim that, to be criminal, infringement must be "for commercial advantage or private financial gain." That simply is not true, and has not been true since Congress passed the lamely-named No Electronic Theft Act in the 1990s. You have written about the NET Act before, I think, so I am surprised you would make this mistake.
Thanks for the comment. I'm sure Mike won't respond. Good call on the NET Act. Here's the text if anyone's interested: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ147/pdf/PLAW-105publ147.pdf Section 506 does in fact say "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." But I think the point you're making is that the NET Act added this to Section 101: "The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works."
You also seem to accept at face value Dotcom's argument that the forfeiture is based on extraterritorial conduct, and the copyright statute does not cover extraterritorial conduct. But you, Mike Masnick, know that much of the data on Megaupload was hosted in the US. I know you know this because you have written many TD stories about Megaupload's US hosting partner, Carpathia. And even if Carpathia were outside the US, distributing copyrighted files into the US from a server outside the US is conduct within the scope of US copyright law. So again, I am surprised that you are so accepting of Dotcom's arguments on this issue.
It is strange how much Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments. Well, it's only strange if you think Mike's goal is to get to the truth. The indictment does focus on the files stored in Virginia: "From at least November 24, 2006 until at least January 19,2012, infringing copies of copyrighted materials were stored on computer servers located at Carpathia Hosting in Ashburn, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia." What's unclear to me, though, is where the specific files mentioned in the indictment were stored or uploaded to. For example, as to a Louis Armstrong song, it says: "An infringing copy of this copyrighted work was still present on servers leased by the Mega Conspiracy as of September 2,2011." Does that mean on the servers in Virginia? I know Dotcom used servers in the U.S. and abroad. The extraterritoriality issues aren't exactly clear, IMO.
Feel free to not read my comments. But "reporting" them because you disagree with them is just sad. I thought TD was supposed to be all about free speech and opposing points of view. Funny how that tenet goes away when it's speech the people here don't like. The fact is I'm opinionated and I back up my opinions more than probably anyone else on TD. I get that my views aren't popular. But the hostility here is ridiculous. If people disagree, they should explain why. Use more words, not hide the words they don't like.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: From the ruling
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re:
Not all delayed transmissions are the same. Does your cable company have a license for the DVR transmissions? Is it a set-top box? You haven't given me enough information.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re:
It's not about complying with the ruling. The ruling said nothing about whether Aereo is a cable system under Section 111, and it said nothing about the delayed transmissions. There's nothing in the opinion about these two issues to comply with. Keep in mind that we're just getting Mike's exaggerated, and unsupported, FUD. Journalism!
On the post: Neil deGrasse Tyson Attacks 'Startup Culture,' Demonstrates Lack Of Understanding About Innovation
Re: Re:
I've seen their arguments dismantled and tossed to the wind so many times on other sites a healthy dose of modesty could go a long way to ensuring they don't lose their audience completely. Or rather, ensuring they keep the intelligent ones coming back and discussing the topics. (Their unending stream of clickbait headlines pretty much guarantees that they will always have an audience, but perhaps not the audience they want.)
Again, great topics here, just dial down the petulance a bit.
The arrogance is all the more ridiculous because the grasp of the subject matter is often so weak. I agree. Drop the "holier than thou" attitude, and this place would be a lot more pleasant--and productive. If anything, though, it's moving in the other direction. Form trumps substance here in a sad way.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Re: Re:
Can you cite the Court's "guidelines" so that we can look at them?
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Can you point to the language in the opinion that makes you think Aereo can escape liability by simply delaying the transmissions? Legal arguments are generally more persuasive when you back them up with primary sources. That said, based on your prior post, I don't think you understand the contemporaneity issue. It's not that the retransmission has to be contemporaneous with the original transmission. What makes it a performance is that the retransmission can be viewed contemporaneously as it's sent. For example, downloading a file from a storage locker is not a performance. Streaming a file from YouTube, on the other hand, is. YouTube sends the file such that it can be viewed contemporaneously. The storage locker does not.
All of the proposed alternatives by Aereo are clearly in direct response to the Supreme Court's specific "looks like a duck" ruling. Aereo isn't trying to challenge that, it's looking to work within the rules the Court established. Yet, once again, we see people taking Aereo's efforts at complying with the specific law as laid out by the courts, and interpreting it as somehow circumventing the law.
And you were just earlier today complaining earlier today about "journalists" exaggerating. The Court did not say that Aereo is a cable system as that term is used in Section 111, so Aereo is not trying "to work within the rules the Court established." Nor did the Court say that the delayed transmissions would be different. If anything, its analysis of the live transmissions indicates that the delayed transmissions are infringing. So your whole point is an exaggerated straw man (as it so often is--journalism!).
On the post: Neil deGrasse Tyson Attacks 'Startup Culture,' Demonstrates Lack Of Understanding About Innovation
Really?!?!
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:
Yes! I forgot about that. Thanks! If true, that certainly cuts in Dotcom's favor. But, I have to ask, are those particular files among the ones that the government says are criminally infringing? My point is that, while I'm sure there's some examples of Dotcom "doing the right thing," I don't see how those examples explain away the times when he allegedly didn't. You can't point to all the times you didn't break the law to defend the times you didn't. "Well, I didn't sell cocaine to Person X" doesn't excuse the time you sold cocaine to Person Y.
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?
That's another great point. I honestly don't know how the DMCA applies in a criminal case. I haven't thought about it, and I don't think the issue has been litigated. That said, the government contends that Dotcom did acts that would make the DMCA safe harbors not apply--even if they potentially did.
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:
I think Mike is obviously pro-piracy, and this post is probative of that conclusion. He just recites Dotcom's arguments, with no examination of the merits of those arguments, verbatim. Yet, he's completely skeptical of everything the government says about Dotcom. Why is he so skeptical of every single thing the government says, yet so completely fawning of whatever Dotcom's lawyers argue? My suggestion: Because he's pro-piracy, and he loves Dotcom. That's substance, not name-calling. Has Mike ever even mentioned the remote possibility that something Dotcom argued Mike possibly be wrong? Of course not. Mike doesn't do substance. He does form. And "protecting" his "friend" Dotcom takes precedence over substance all day long on TD, IMO.
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:
(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.
Source
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.
Thanks for looking that up. Crim Pro is not something I know much about. That said, I'm not sure how all the servers were ever within the government's possession, custody, or control. And even if they were, my question is how the files were "material to preparing the defense," intended to be used in the government's "case-in-chief at trial," or "obtained from or belong[ed] to the defendant." That's my point. How are the files stored by third parties that aren't at issue is this case "material," i.e., relevant?
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:
9/10. Would LOL again.
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:
Thanks for the comment. There's two types of forfeitures, criminal and civil. Criminal forfeiture, which is what I think you're thinking of, happens after conviction. Civil forfeiture, which is what this is, can happen before conviction. The government just has to show that the property is forfeitable by a preponderance of the evidence.
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:
Mike doesn't defend his nonsense when called out on it. And it's not just when I do it. This AC called Mike out, and, as I predicted, Mike was silent. Was I wrong?
And look at that, another personal attack.
This is why your comments get reported AJ, because 99% of the time you seem to have the digital version of Tourretts, and find it impossible not to insult someone(usually Mike).
(As an aside, I find it rather funny that you're accusing Mike of 'regurgitating Dotcom's arguments, when you seem to be doing the exact same regarding the DOJ's. Double standards much?)
I do challenge Mike, substantively and personally. So what? I disagree with what he says, and I explain why I think he's wrong. I think he's selectively skeptical, and I point that out. That's me stating an opinion, and I'm happy to back up my opinion with substantive argument. That should be celebrated, not punished. Debate is a good thing. Dissent is a good thing. It's unreal that I have to defend the fact that I have an opinion that I defend. WTF?
And I don't just regurgitate what the government says. I've stated above that I think Dotcom makes a good point about what works were allegedly infringed, and more importantly, where those infringements allegedly took place. The government may well have the evidence, but I haven't seen it yet. But that's not surprising, as we're still at the very early stages. I think the government has probably said enough to get past a motion to dismiss, but I don't think they've shown enough to get a conviction. I'd love to have all the evidence now, but we don't.
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:
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?
Well, it's not a matter of the government having the evidence and refusing to turn it over. I think a good analogy would be if I rent a storage locker and keep evidence of my crime in there along with a bunch of crap. If the government searches the locker and seizes the evidence, but then leaves the crap, I can't complain that the evidence is being kept from me if the government chooses to not pay the rent so my crap stays in the locker. The owner of the locker can auction off my crap or throw it away, and that doesn't affect my legal case.
But it's the fact that keeping relevant, exculpatory evidence from Dotcom would undermine the government's case that makes me skeptical of Dotcom's argument that there's anything relevant being kept from him. Aren't the servers just full of files stored by third parties? How do those third-party files help Dotcom? Unless the government is claiming those files are infringing, I don't see how they matter. They're the crap I let my friend store in my locker. They don't have anything to do with my legal case. I can't point to the legal crap I kept in the locker to escape liability for the evidence of the crimes that I also kept there.
What possible evidence could there be? How are a bunch of files stored by third parties relevant? That's what I'm asking.
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:
The fact that the US have filed for a forfeiture claim shows that they do not have the right to control/possession of the assets, property etc. in question to do what they like with.
It's a two-step process. First the government demonstrates to the court that there's probable cause to seize the property (for example, if the property is the fruit or instrumentality of a crime). The court issues a warrant and takes either actual or constructive possession of the property. Then the government demonstrates to the court that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the property which has already been seized should also be forfeited. The seizure is temporary. The forfeiture is permanent. Dotcom's assets were already seized when the court issued the warrants (which the foreign jurisdictions enforced). The issue now is whether Dotcom should lose those assets permanently.
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:
I don't see how the government's case changes one iota even if it concedes that there were millions of files that were lost that are all noninfringing. The case isn't about those files. It's about the files that are the works-in-suit. Dotcom can't point to the files that are noninfringing to prove anything about the files that aren't. Even if every single file that's gone is noninfringing, that doesn't change a thing.
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:
I haven't really followed that closely. I know at first the court said the warrant was faulty, but then an appeals court said it wasn't. Yet, the appeals court agreed that the drives shouldn't have been turned over to the U.S. But even if the New Zealand government shouldn't have turned them over to the U.S., I don't see how that makes them inadmissible in the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. got the evidence it needed for the indictment from the U.S.-based servers, and there's no argument that the warrant in the U.S. is faulty that I know of.
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:
Thanks for the comment. I'm sure Mike won't respond. Good call on the NET Act. Here's the text if anyone's interested: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ147/pdf/PLAW-105publ147.pdf Section 506 does in fact say "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." But I think the point you're making is that the NET Act added this to Section 101: "The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works."
You also seem to accept at face value Dotcom's argument that the forfeiture is based on extraterritorial conduct, and the copyright statute does not cover extraterritorial conduct. But you, Mike Masnick, know that much of the data on Megaupload was hosted in the US. I know you know this because you have written many TD stories about Megaupload's US hosting partner, Carpathia. And even if Carpathia were outside the US, distributing copyrighted files into the US from a server outside the US is conduct within the scope of US copyright law. So again, I am surprised that you are so accepting of Dotcom's arguments on this issue.
It is strange how much Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments. Well, it's only strange if you think Mike's goal is to get to the truth. The indictment does focus on the files stored in Virginia: "From at least November 24, 2006 until at least January 19,2012, infringing copies of copyrighted materials were stored on computer servers located at Carpathia Hosting in Ashburn, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia." What's unclear to me, though, is where the specific files mentioned in the indictment were stored or uploaded to. For example, as to a Louis Armstrong song, it says: "An infringing copy of this copyrighted work was still present on servers leased by the Mega Conspiracy as of September 2,2011." Does that mean on the servers in Virginia? I know Dotcom used servers in the U.S. and abroad. The extraterritoriality issues aren't exactly clear, IMO.
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:
Next >>