So what you are saying is that anything that can help Dotcoms defence you don't see how its irrelevant. Anything on those servers that can be helpful in Dotcoms defence should be available to him to use but because the files were wiped off the servers without his knowledge that is no longer an option but the only files that were copied by the prosecution were cherry picked by them that they deem will incriminate him. Is it any wonder that a fair trial cannot be given being as all those files were wiped off the server and none of which can no longer serve to help Dotcoms defence.
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?
Would seem to be saying that they still have to prove that the original crime occurred.
They can't just say 'He's accused of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement', and try him for that, without first proving that the original crime of 'criminal copyright infringement' actually took place.
Correct. They need to prove that someone committed criminal infringement for Dotcom et al. to be guilty for aiding and abetting that crime. It seems like that's not hard to do assuming the server logs spell out what files were uploaded/downloaded. The records they kept for their affiliate program should do nicely.
Wow, I don't think I've clicked report so many times in one story!
Wouldn't it be more productive to explain why you disagree with someone than to "report" the post? Are you threatened by people who think differently than yourself?
So the US has a copy of every single file that was kept on a server hosted by Leaseweb retained as evidence before all those files were wiped off the server just over a year ago without Megauploads knowledge and will give Dotcom a copy of all that evidence containing all those millions files then?
I'm not sure exactly what files they have, but I doubt they have a copy of every file that was ever stored since there were so many. They probably have the server logs, the emails, the files that were allegedly infringed, etc. You know, the relevant files. How are any of the other files relevant? I know Dotcom whined about exculpatory evidence being lost, but I don't understand how those other files are exculpatory. Is it because they might not have been infringing? If so, I don't see how it's relevant. Can you explain.
You'd think so. Curious isn't it then that one of the gov't's early moves was to try to get the court's permission to blow away all the data arguing it was unnecessary and too expensive to keep.
The government has copies, and the evidence will be (or has been) handed over to Dotcom as per the rules of criminal procedure.
Here's a good statement of the law on aiding and abetting, pointing out that there need not be a conviction of the underlying crime:
The aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. ยง 2, does not establish a separate crime, but rather is an alternative charge that permits one to be found guilty as a principal for aiding or procuring someone else to commit the offense. United States v. Martin, 747 F.2d 1404, 1407 (11th Cir.1984). A jury may find a person guilty of aiding and abetting even though he or she did not commit all the acts constituting the elements of the substantive crime charged. Id. Nonetheless, as an element of the offense of aiding and abetting, the government must prove that someone committed the underlying crime. See United States v. Raper, 676 F.2d 841, 849 (D.C.Cir.1982) (listing elements); United States v. Hurd, 642 F.2d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.1981) (aiding and abetting conviction reversed when it was shown that government failed to prove that principal committed the underlying crime); United States v. McCoy, 539 F.2d 1050, 1064 (5th Cir.1976) (existence of crime is an element of the offense of aiding and abetting), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919, 97 S.Ct. 2185, 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1977). It is not a prerequisite to a conviction for aiding and abetting, however, that the principal be tried and convicted, or even that the principal be identified. United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 841 (9th Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Provenzano, 334 F.2d 678, 691 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 947, 85 S.Ct. 440, 13 L.Ed.2d 544 (1964)); see also United States v. Valenzuela, 596 F.2d 1361, 1363 n. 2 (9th Cir.) (one can aid and abet an unindicted principal), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 865, 100 S.Ct. 136, 62 L.Ed.2d 88 (1979). In fact, an aider and abettor's conviction may be upheld even though the principal is acquitted of the underlying offense. See Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 20, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 2006, 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980); United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88, 92-94 (3d Cir.1973) (en banc ); United States v. Azadian, 436 F.2d 81, 82-83 (9th Cir.1971). In such cases, however, it is clear that although the principal was not convicted, the underlying offense was committed. See Standefer, 447 U.S. at 13 n. 6, 100 S.Ct. at 2002 n. 6; Bryan, 483 F.2d at 93; Azadian, 436 F.2d at 82.
United States v. Mann, 811 F.2d 495, 497 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added).
So Dotcom can be convicted of aiding and abetting even if the direct infringer (the "principal") is not identified. Keep in mind too that there's the charges for conspiracy and direct infringement. It's not only aiding and abetting. Plus there's the money laundering (but I think that hinges on the copyright claims).
I cannot find any mention in the forfeiture complaint of a an actual named user living in the US who shared files. All it mentions is that people uploaded to Megaupload or downloaded from Megaupload but it does not state an actual named user that did so within the US who did it. For them to prove that someone within the US shared copyright files they will have to give specific detail and thus they haven't done so only a generalisation.
The specific "overt acts" are listed in the indictment, not the complaint. I'm not sure exactly how extraterritoriality works. But I think the government is hinging jurisdiction on the fact that some of the servers were located in the U.S.
Then find me a case even vaguely similar to Megaupload, where a service provider was found guilty of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement despite no one else even being charged with the direct infringement.
The rule applies to aiding and abetting liability under Section 2 generally, not just Section 2 applied to criminal infringement. If I have time later, I'll find you a cite.
Mere file-names are not enough in and of themselves to constitute guilt. What if one of the files was named "Hot_Incest_Illegal_Child_Pron.avi"? All that paragraph mentions is a file name and a description by the uploader. It mentions nothing about evidence showing it to be what it is purported to be. The same goes for all the other files talked about in the pdf. I'm seeing file names only and no evidence that they are what they are actually named.
They have the servers, right? We don't know all the evidence yet since it's just an indictment. Perhaps the servers contain the actual file and records of when/where it was uploaded/downloaded.
There is NO mention whatsoever in that forfeiture complaint that the (alleged) copyright infringement took place within the US.
The complaint references the indictment. The indictment discusses the servers in Virginia and elsewhere in the U.S. I'd have to look up the case law on extraterritoriality to say anything intelligent about it.
You're playing the same word games and double-think games that the Dept. of Justice has been playing. You conflate what the Government has been able to get away with/hasn't been held accountable for with what is "legal" simply because there isn't an uncorrupted person in power over them that has put a stop to their unjust acts. What's "legal" in the sense of "nobody can stop the Government from doing this" or "the corrupt Government made up policies and memos that argues that their actions are 'legal'" is not the same thing as actually being legal. Just because the Government makes a habit of violating the Constitution and Due Process and gets away with it doesn't mean that its actions are actually legal. It definitely doesn't mean that its actions are ethical or just.
It's a red herring to ask for a court ruling that supports the argument that its unjust because its only intended, but not necessarily true, that a court would make a ruling that determines whether due process has been violated. If the system is corrupt, you can't expect just rulings to happen at all, much less quickly and/or decisively.
Expecting justice from a corrupt justice system is like expecting the truth from a pathological liar. On occasion, he may tell the truth, but you can't expect it every time.
I'm a big supporter of due process, and if I thought Dotcom's due process rights were being violated, I'd say so. I think Dotcom will get a fair trial, should there ever be one.
Dotcom has time and again stated that he would willingly have this out in a US court IF he were to be allowed a fair trial and bail. The DOJ has refused those guarantees in official discussions.
He'll get the same chance at bail as any other defendant.
The DOJ would NOT allow him access to funds to mount a proper defence and neither would they allow him bail - he would be incarcerated the whole time and the US likely delay the case for a number of years i.e. a few years incarceration without trial.
I've yet to see a decent explanation of how the government is withholding exculpatory evidence from him. I don't believe they are.
I don't know why this and your previous comment in this threadding were reported. This is the kind of thing we should not be doing.
People are allowed to have conflicting opinions and as long as they're civil about it then we should not be reporting them.
I imagine the same people who are "reporting" my posts would proclaim their devotion to free speech and to the importance of dissenting views when asked. Thanks for saying something. It'd be nice if Mike said something about it, but since I'm being critical of him, I doubt he will.
I'm not going to delve into Mike's stance on copyright, since it's very clear to most of us and is a red herring of an issue, but I did want to point out that "pro-piracy" and "pro-copyright" are not exactly opposites. One can easily believe that the current copyright law is terrible while at the same time believing that piracy is wrong. I know I do, anyway.
Have you ever seen any evidence that Mike supports any copyright rights for authors whatsoever?
It appears the government is tying the forfeiture to the direct infringement and conspiracy to commit direct infringement charges, not the aiding and abetting charge: "As set forth above and as incorporated in the Superseding Indictment, the Mega Conspiracy wilfully infringed and conspired to wilfully infringe copyrighted works when, for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain, it took numerous copyrighted works, including works it knew were being prepared for commercial distribution, and made them available on a publicly accessible computer network."
As far as which works this includes, the superseding indictment mentions: (1) a 50-cent song, (2) the works scraped from YouTube, (3) Alcohol 120 software, (4) "musical recordings by the artist Armin van Buuren," (5) loads of files from specific users, (6) a Soulja Boy video, (7) the Sopranos, (7) Grand Archives songs, (8) Louis Armstrong song, (8) "many infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures, including Ocean's Thirteen, Ratatouille, and Evan Almighty," (9) BBC Earth, (10) My Blueberry Nights, (10) Dan in Real Life, (11) Taken, etc.
Soooooo... we shouldn't be suspicious of the government's argument, despite the many bad points they make and instead be suspicious of Dotcom for the few bad points he makes? Just because you pull out two arguments that aren't so good doesn't make the whole argument any less valid. You have made some good, non-trollish points in the past. Does all your other crap devalue those points?
I'm skeptical of the arguments made by both sides. But that's just me. As far as I can tell, Mike turns off his skepticism when it comes to Dotcom's arguments. This comports with his bias generally. Any study that says anything "good" about copyright is summarily "debunked," while studies that show copyright is "bad" are repeated without question. It's pretty silly, IMO.
Someone might consider your bias to be equally extreme, and you stating your position as "anti-piracy" doesn't make any difference.
While I've seen several commenters calling for the abolishing of all copyright, all I have ever seen from TechDirt is acknowledging that copyright law is in need of very serious reform, and it makes a pretty good case as to why.
There's a big difference between wanting laws to change and wanting to break the law. Techdirt wants the former but your futile attempts to peg it as "pro-piracy" is just a feeble (and pointless) attempt to make it look like it advocates the latter.
Well, I'm certainly biased pro-copyright. I freely admit that. That said, I try and call them like I see them--even if it means agreeing with the anti-copyright crowd. I think copyright brings out a lot of polar thinking. There are extremists in both camps. I think Mike is in the extreme anti-copyright camp. I think I'm closer to the middle, but definitely on the pro-copyright side of the line. I tend to think that both sides of the debate make good points. Mike, as far as I can tell, only thinks that his side makes good points.
So at the very least, the government cooked this up for Dotcom and then used it on someone else no one has heard of later.
That paper was published in 2013, but it's discussing the change to the Copyright Act in the 1970s. Aiding and abetting criminal infringement has been a crime for over a century.
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:
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?
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:
They can't just say 'He's accused of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement', and try him for that, without first proving that the original crime of 'criminal copyright infringement' actually took place.
Correct. They need to prove that someone committed criminal infringement for Dotcom et al. to be guilty for aiding and abetting that crime. It seems like that's not hard to do assuming the server logs spell out what files were uploaded/downloaded. The records they kept for their affiliate program should do nicely.
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:
Wouldn't it be more productive to explain why you disagree with someone than to "report" the post? Are you threatened by people who think differently than yourself?
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'm not sure exactly what files they have, but I doubt they have a copy of every file that was ever stored since there were so many. They probably have the server logs, the emails, the files that were allegedly infringed, etc. You know, the relevant files. How are any of the other files relevant? I know Dotcom whined about exculpatory evidence being lost, but I don't understand how those other files are exculpatory. Is it because they might not have been infringing? If so, I don't see how it's relevant. Can you explain.
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:
The government has copies, and the evidence will be (or has been) handed over to Dotcom as per the rules of criminal procedure.
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:
So Dotcom can be convicted of aiding and abetting even if the direct infringer (the "principal") is not identified. Keep in mind too that there's the charges for conspiracy and direct infringement. It's not only aiding and abetting. Plus there's the money laundering (but I think that hinges on the copyright claims).
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:
The specific "overt acts" are listed in the indictment, not the complaint. I'm not sure exactly how extraterritoriality works. But I think the government is hinging jurisdiction on the fact that some of the servers were located in the U.S.
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:
The rule applies to aiding and abetting liability under Section 2 generally, not just Section 2 applied to criminal infringement. If I have time later, I'll find you a cite.
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:
All that paragraph mentions is a file name and a description by the uploader. It mentions nothing about evidence showing it to be what it is purported to be.
The same goes for all the other files talked about in the pdf. I'm seeing file names only and no evidence that they are what they are actually named.
They have the servers, right? We don't know all the evidence yet since it's just an indictment. Perhaps the servers contain the actual file and records of when/where it was uploaded/downloaded.
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 complaint references the indictment. The indictment discusses the servers in Virginia and elsewhere in the U.S. I'd have to look up the case law on extraterritoriality to say anything intelligent about it.
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:
It's a red herring to ask for a court ruling that supports the argument that its unjust because its only intended, but not necessarily true, that a court would make a ruling that determines whether due process has been violated. If the system is corrupt, you can't expect just rulings to happen at all, much less quickly and/or decisively.
Expecting justice from a corrupt justice system is like expecting the truth from a pathological liar. On occasion, he may tell the truth, but you can't expect it every time.
I'm a big supporter of due process, and if I thought Dotcom's due process rights were being violated, I'd say so. I think Dotcom will get a fair trial, should there ever be one.
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:
He'll get the same chance at bail as any other defendant.
The DOJ would NOT allow him access to funds to mount a proper defence and neither would they allow him bail - he would be incarcerated the whole time and the US likely delay the case for a number of years i.e. a few years incarceration without trial.
I've yet to see a decent explanation of how the government is withholding exculpatory evidence from him. I don't believe they are.
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:
This is the kind of thing we should not be doing.
People are allowed to have conflicting opinions and as long as they're civil about it then we should not be reporting them.
I imagine the same people who are "reporting" my posts would proclaim their devotion to free speech and to the importance of dissenting views when asked. Thanks for saying something. It'd be nice if Mike said something about it, but since I'm being critical of him, I doubt he will.
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:
If it's been proven so many times, it should be easy for you to show us this evidence now. What's 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: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever seen any evidence that Mike supports any copyright rights for authors whatsoever?
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:
For example?
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'
It appears the government is tying the forfeiture to the direct infringement and conspiracy to commit direct infringement charges, not the aiding and abetting charge: "As set forth above and as incorporated in the Superseding Indictment, the Mega Conspiracy wilfully infringed and conspired to wilfully infringe copyrighted works when, for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain, it took numerous copyrighted works, including works it knew were being prepared for commercial distribution, and made them available on a publicly accessible computer network."
As far as which works this includes, the superseding indictment mentions: (1) a 50-cent song, (2) the works scraped from YouTube, (3) Alcohol 120 software, (4) "musical recordings by the artist Armin van Buuren," (5) loads of files from specific users, (6) a Soulja Boy video, (7) the Sopranos, (7) Grand Archives songs, (8) Louis Armstrong song, (8) "many infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures, including Ocean's Thirteen, Ratatouille, and Evan Almighty," (9) BBC Earth, (10) My Blueberry Nights, (10) Dan in Real Life, (11) Taken, etc.
So it appears that the government has mentioned several works by name and is prepared to name several more. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload-indictment.pdf
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:
I'm skeptical of the arguments made by both sides. But that's just me. As far as I can tell, Mike turns off his skepticism when it comes to Dotcom's arguments. This comports with his bias generally. Any study that says anything "good" about copyright is summarily "debunked," while studies that show copyright is "bad" are repeated without question. It's pretty silly, 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:
While I've seen several commenters calling for the abolishing of all copyright, all I have ever seen from TechDirt is acknowledging that copyright law is in need of very serious reform, and it makes a pretty good case as to why.
There's a big difference between wanting laws to change and wanting to break the law. Techdirt wants the former but your futile attempts to peg it as "pro-piracy" is just a feeble (and pointless) attempt to make it look like it advocates the latter.
Well, I'm certainly biased pro-copyright. I freely admit that. That said, I try and call them like I see them--even if it means agreeing with the anti-copyright crowd. I think copyright brings out a lot of polar thinking. There are extremists in both camps. I think Mike is in the extreme anti-copyright camp. I think I'm closer to the middle, but definitely on the pro-copyright side of the line. I tend to think that both sides of the debate make good points. Mike, as far as I can tell, only thinks that his side makes good points.
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:
So at the very least, the government cooked this up for Dotcom and then used it on someone else no one has heard of later.
That paper was published in 2013, but it's discussing the change to the Copyright Act in the 1970s. Aiding and abetting criminal infringement has been a crime for over a century.
Next >>