A court can also restrict someones ability to initiate legal actions, especially when it does so to protect others from abuses of the court system.
Well, you run into prior restraint issues. A court can sanction someone for bringing a case in bad faith, but that's punishment after the wrong has been committed. That's a different matter than enjoining someone from bringing a case in the first place. That would be prior restraint. You'd think Mike would be really worried about the implication here, but I guess since he dislikes the defendant, his concerns disappeared.
I've only seen such prior restraint one time. The context was an inmate who kept filing petition after petition, making completely frivolous claims. The Chief Judge of the District Court wanted to stop the abuse, but he was also concerned about violating the inmate's First Amendment right to petition the court over his alleged grievances. The solution was that the clerk was directed to bring any future petitions from this inmate to the Chief Judge, who would then decide whether it had any merit. If it did, the petition would be permitted to continue.
I think the mistake Mike has made is conflating the distinction between the First Amendment right to petition the court and the court's power to deny the petition. The thinking seems to be that there's no right to petition if the petition can be denied. That's not how it works.
Anyone else surprised to see antidirt standing up for the heroes of copyright and their right to run grandmothers into the ground for porn they didn't download?
Ha! I guess the freeloaders that get billed need a new business model. j/k
I don't care about them either way. I just think it's not abuse of process to request a subpoena from the clerk. The clerk didn't think the process was being abused either. It issued the subpoenas. This issue will probably make it to the Ninth Circuit one day, and I wouldn't be surprised if it follows the other two circuits and holds that 512(h) doesn't apply to ISPs that don't host the material. That's a plausible read of the statute.
It's not the only one, though. The district court in the Verizon case read it differently:
Based on the language and structure of the statute, as confirmed by the purpose and history of the legislation, the Court concludes that the subpoena power in 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) applies to all Internet service providers within the scope of the DMCA, not just to those service providers storing information on a system or network at the direction of a user.
In re Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 24, 26 (D.D.C.).
That decision was reversed by the appellate court, but I think it demonstrates that there exists a good faith interpretation of the statute consistent with Rightscorp's position. Since the Ninth Circuit hasn't said anything either way, there's no bad faith about it. Without the bad faith, there is no abuse of process, and the 512(h) activity is protected by the First Amendment. I'm happy to explain my position.
That said, it was put in place, in part, to help keep YouTube from getting sued over copyright claims, so a fixed DMCA might lead to a better ContentID offering.
How exactly would you fix the DMCA so that this wouldn't likely happen with ContentID, Mike?
Subpoenas can also be challenged via the courts, as is being done here, so there is still no free speech issue, or petition rights to be examined.
You're missing the point. Yes, courts can look at subpoenas. An ISP that receives one of these subpoenas can file a motion to quash, and the court can grant the motion. That's got nothing to do with whether Rightscorp, as an agent of the copyright owner, is protected by the First Amendment when it requests a 512(h) subpoena from the clerk (it is, by the way).
Yes, the clerk can refuse to issue the subpoena if the person requesting it doesn't meet the standard. That's a separate issue than whether the First Amendment protects one's free speech and petition rights.
The issue with this motion is whether Rightscorp's use of the 512(h) subpoena process is abuse of process. Given that the Ninth Circuit has never ruled on 512(h), I think it's not.
That's not really sound logic.
512(h) says that a copyright owner or agent can ask the clerk for a subpoena directed to a service provider to identify an alleged infringer. That's what Rightscorp did. 512(h) has been interpreted in two other circuits to not apply to ISPs that act as conduits, but the Ninth Circuit has never interpreted it so. Why would Rightscorp's actions be anything but in good faith? 512(h) is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. What's your sound logic?
Also, speaking of research, funny how you ignored the links talking about the two other times the 512(h) 'loophole' has been tried, first by the RIAA, then by copyright troll Evan Stone, and both of them were shot down by the courts, with the SC refusing to hear the case when the RIAA lost. Why, it was almost as though the courts didn't equate legal threats with protected speech...
But hey, clearly because this court hasn't ruled on the matter yet, that means that there's absolutely no precedent for this particular type or legal trick. /s
I didn't ignore it. I mentioned that the 512(h) thing the plaintiff is relying on is not the law in the Ninth Circuit. I'm aware that two other circuits have looked at it (8th Cir. and D.C. Cir., if memory serves). However, I think you're focusing on the wrong thing by looking at "legal threats." The issue with this motion is whether Rightscorp's use of the 512(h) subpoena process is abuse of process. Given that the Ninth Circuit has never ruled on 512(h), I think it's not. Rightscorp can in good faith use the 512(h) subpoena process, and such is protected by the petition and free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The "legal threats," as you put it, are not at issue.
The anti-SLAPP statute protects any act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech, see Cal. Civ. P.Code § 425.16, including, without limitation, the filing of a complaint, the assertion of allegations therein, the service of subpoenas, and any factual investigation related to the issues in dispute.
Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Law is hard, especially when you don't do research.
"It's hard to see how anyone can argue that merely filing a subpoena for information is protected free speech."
LOL
Yeah, that's one of the funnier things Mike has ever claimed. Funny how blinded he is by his own double standards. Funny too how he completely ignores the part of the First Amendment (and the anti-SLAPP statute) that refers to the right of petition, and he pretends like the 512(h) thing is settled law when the Ninth Circuit has never addressed it. Reporting! Analysis! Techdirt!
"I assume he didn't show up to defend his property for the same reason he's fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he's going to lose."
Did you research that issue? Did you research the history of how the DOJ conducts criminal trials? Did you research how US Attorneys often railroad innocent people just to keep their conviction rates up? Did you research the history of how the civil asset forfeiture process is abused?
No. Of course you didn't. You only pretend to do it when you want to attack Mike because you're a jealous, petty little man-child. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite all the time AJ.
Despite your abusiveness, I'm happy to respond to your point (though I think we're getting pretty meta here).
Not all opinions are the same. There are opinions based on dogged research, there are opinions based on nothing at all, and there are opinions that fall somewhere in between. I began the second sentence you quoted with "I assume." This was intended to signal to the reader that I'm about to offer something on the conjecture end of the spectrum. I literally indicated that it was an assumption before saying it.
I also based it of the filings from both parties, as well as the judge's rulings, all of which I've read. On top of that, I've done extensive research into criminal copyright infringement, reading many treatises, decisions, law reviews, etc. My opinion there is well-formed and well-supported. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum from conjecture.
I'm not jealous, but I can certainly be petty at times. I don't think I'm being petty here with my criticism of Mike's predictable defense of Dotcom. Mike is looking at the same sources at me, and, frankly, he's reaching ridiculous opinions that just aren't supported in reality. I'm not saying all of his points are ridiculous. On the contrary, he makes good points sometimes. That's why I read Techdirt.
But some of his claims aren't defensible, and it clear that he's not interesting in trying to defend them. He often states these things as fact, when oftentimes they're debatable at best and lies at worst. The difference between us is that Mike has no problem stating unsupported opinions as fact, while I prefer to do my homework beforehand. The irony is that his blog posts constantly call out the shortcomings in others, yet he's so sensitive and dismissive of his own faults.
I didn't ask you what the law said was the standard. I asked you whether you felt it was just and proper for the government to take someone's property without a criminal conviction by a court?
Could you please answer the question?
I made clear that I haven't given it much thought, and I'm not aware of the arguments for and against. I like to research issues before forming an opinion on them, unlike many people on Techdirt, especially Mike. That said, even if there is no underlying conviction, there is nonetheless a forfeiture action where the burden is on the government to prove the property is forfeitable. The underlying crime and the property's connection to it still has to be proved. There's ample due process protections for property owners. They, of course, have to submit to the court's jurisdiction first. Dotcom wanted to show up in court to protect his property, but he didn't want to face his charges in that same court. He wants the benefits, but not the burdens, of the legal system. I don't think that's right. I assume he didn't show up to defend his property for the same reason he's fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he's going to lose. To answer your question to the best of my ability, I don't think it's necessarily unjust and improper, given the procedural protections. I think there might be policy reasons out there that would make me see it differently, but I just haven't really looked into it. I understand that some think the process is being abused, but I don't really know either way. Abuse is wrong, and I'm against it. But with Dotcom, I don't see abuse. What do you think?
No, I just didn't have a comment on that part. You are entitled to your opinions.
It's a fact. The indictment alleges many acts of direct infringement, for example, scraping YouTube and posting a pre-release version of the movie "Taken," yet Mike has several posts claiming the government's legal case makes no sense, and he makes no mention of these allegations. This has been pointed out to Mike many times, yet he never admits these allegations even exist. It's weird how you don't call him out for it.
Out of context, cherry-picked evidence....yeah, that wouldn't be real convincing to me if I was on the jury.
How are the emails where the coconspirators discuss how they're scraping YouTube at Dotcom's insistence out of context and cherry picked? How are the files on the Megaupload servers that resulted from that scraping out of context and cherry picked? What about the movie "Taken"? How are the emails and the file itself out of context and cherry picked? No wonder you won't fault Mike for intentionally lying about the existence of these allegations. You can't even admit them yourself.
Good question. Now thanks to the efforts of the USG we will never actually know.
This is the best answer you, Mike, or his best bud Dotcom, can come up with. It's not an answer. Note how no one can even hypothesize about any particular relevant evidence that has been lost. It's a stupid argument, and it will be rejected like so many of the other stupid arguments in support of Dotcom.
Don't you think that the court, at the very least, should have the duty to wait until there's actually a criminal conviction before taking everything? Or do you believe that it is just and proper to take everything despite no crime being officially determined by a court? Think carefully. Your answer will reveal a lot about you.
I'm sure you've already made up your mind about me before you asked the question. That said, what's decided by the court is whether the property is forfeitable by a preponderance of the evidence. You're suggesting a higher burden of proof, essentially, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know enough about the policy reasons for using preponderance. I believe it comes from admiralty/maritime law. It seems to me that much of our property is susceptible to being taken away based on only a preponderance. Think tort law. If the burden of proof for forfeitures were raised, I wouldn't really have an opinion on it until I understood the issues better. I don't have a sufficient grasp of the pros and cons, so I don't really have opinion. Judge away!
I'm not faulting you for your opinion. I'm faulting you for supporting the government's actions in this case. If the government's case is as rock solid as you claim, then why all the shenanigans in preventing Dotcom from mounting a viable defense? What is happening in this case doesn't even come close to the concept of "justice" and even you should take issue with that.
Funny how you cut off my point about Mike intentionally misrepresenting the government's allegations. I don't agree that Dotcom has not been permitted to mount a viable defense. He's got extensive legal representation in two different countries. They're throwing out every argument they can think of and appealing everything that doesn't stick. He getting better representation than most. If you're referring to the server thing, I don't think there's been any exculpatory evidence destroyed. The government has the server logs, the chats and emails (which amazingly seem to have been plaintext), the bank receipts, etc. What relevant information was on the servers that were lost? Wasn't it just files stored by third parties that are not part of the government's case? How could those possibly be exculpatory? Even if the government stipulates that each and every file lost were noninfringing, that doesn't help Dotcom. No one can even posit a guess about what might possibly have been lost that was relevant. Besides, if the government destroyed evidence, that would help Dotcom. That's the last thing the government wants to do.
Maybe he could put some of his mansion rent into a legal team in the U.S. Or he could just use the same lawyers he used for this in rem forfeiture action, you know, the legal team he already has in the U.S. If that doesn't work, I'm sure Mike would help him raise some money. Kickstarter! T-shirts, even!
Just like any other Non US resident who has never been to the US you mean? How would you like it antidirt, if Russia seized all of your money? They don't have to prove anything. Once they have it, you have to prove you gained it all legally (their definition of legal). When you offer to come to Russia to fight the charges, they decline the offer and declare you a fugitive. Exactly the same thing.
Did I operate a service in Russia, from servers hosted in Russia, making millions of dollars that I routed through Russian banks, while intentionally violating the rights of thousands of people in Russia? That would make it more of the same thing.
And just so you know, my opinion of you has just dropped about 20 notches AJ. I once believed you were, at the very least, a fair and just person, even when your arguments and opinions were opposed to mine. Not so much anymore. You seem to have already tried and convicted Dotcom based on one side of a story. That's something morons do.
I've been reading the briefing from both sides. On the merits of the alleged crime, I've read the superseding indictment, and in these very comments, I've outlined several examples of alleged direct criminal infringement by Dotcom and friends. These aren't third parties. These are the alleged principal coconspirators. Yet, Mike has been writing about this case for years, always questioning the government's case, yet never acknowledging the alleged direct criminal infringement. Funny how you fault me for reaching an opinion based on the indictment, but you don't fault Mike for purposely ignoring the parts of the indictment he doesn't like while spouting legal opinions he won't back up in the comments.
You must also be proud of police brutality because clearly those that received it, deserved it. Why even have a court process if it doesn't produce the results you want. It is comforting to know that the government will stoop down and do criminal acts just to prove a point.
Police brutality is criminal and wrong. The government here is playing by the book. Dotcom wanted the benefits of being able to defend his property in the court, but not the burden of submitting himself to the court to face his criminal charges. I see no reason why he should get it both ways. Why should the court permit him to assert his rights when he's dodging his responsibilities to that same court?
Why should someone living in New Zealand, who has never set foot in the USA, be tried in any court other than those in New Zealand, where copyright laws also apply?
If you pick up the phone in the United States and threaten to kill someone on the other end in New Zealand, you've committed a crime in New Zealand, whether you've ever set foot there or not. Dotcom's ties to the United States were significant, including many servers in Virginia, where he's being charged. That seems to be his biggest mistake jurisdiction-wise.
The only thing funnier than you pretending that it's funny when the government demonstrates yet another miscarriage of justice on behalf of the corporations who bought the government is that you come here to gloat about it like it's not your own liberties and rights that are endangered by this kind of unchecked conduct.
I am gloating. I applaud the hardworking government actors who are bringing Dotcom to justice, kicking and screaming as he is. I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights. Kudos on a job well done.
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you run into prior restraint issues. A court can sanction someone for bringing a case in bad faith, but that's punishment after the wrong has been committed. That's a different matter than enjoining someone from bringing a case in the first place. That would be prior restraint. You'd think Mike would be really worried about the implication here, but I guess since he dislikes the defendant, his concerns disappeared.
I've only seen such prior restraint one time. The context was an inmate who kept filing petition after petition, making completely frivolous claims. The Chief Judge of the District Court wanted to stop the abuse, but he was also concerned about violating the inmate's First Amendment right to petition the court over his alleged grievances. The solution was that the clerk was directed to bring any future petitions from this inmate to the Chief Judge, who would then decide whether it had any merit. If it did, the petition would be permitted to continue.
I think the mistake Mike has made is conflating the distinction between the First Amendment right to petition the court and the court's power to deny the petition. The thinking seems to be that there's no right to petition if the petition can be denied. That's not how it works.
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re:
Ha! I guess the freeloaders that get billed need a new business model. j/k
I don't care about them either way. I just think it's not abuse of process to request a subpoena from the clerk. The clerk didn't think the process was being abused either. It issued the subpoenas. This issue will probably make it to the Ninth Circuit one day, and I wouldn't be surprised if it follows the other two circuits and holds that 512(h) doesn't apply to ISPs that don't host the material. That's a plausible read of the statute.
It's not the only one, though. The district court in the Verizon case read it differently:In re Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 24, 26 (D.D.C.).
That decision was reversed by the appellate court, but I think it demonstrates that there exists a good faith interpretation of the statute consistent with Rightscorp's position. Since the Ninth Circuit hasn't said anything either way, there's no bad faith about it. Without the bad faith, there is no abuse of process, and the 512(h) activity is protected by the First Amendment. I'm happy to explain my position.
On the post: Once Again, Political Speech Is Silenced By Copyright/ContentID
How exactly would you fix the DMCA so that this wouldn't likely happen with ContentID, Mike?
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're missing the point. Yes, courts can look at subpoenas. An ISP that receives one of these subpoenas can file a motion to quash, and the court can grant the motion. That's got nothing to do with whether Rightscorp, as an agent of the copyright owner, is protected by the First Amendment when it requests a 512(h) subpoena from the clerk (it is, by the way).
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not really sound logic.
512(h) says that a copyright owner or agent can ask the clerk for a subpoena directed to a service provider to identify an alleged infringer. That's what Rightscorp did. 512(h) has been interpreted in two other circuits to not apply to ISPs that act as conduits, but the Ninth Circuit has never interpreted it so. Why would Rightscorp's actions be anything but in good faith? 512(h) is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. What's your sound logic?
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
But hey, clearly because this court hasn't ruled on the matter yet, that means that there's absolutely no precedent for this particular type or legal trick. /s
I didn't ignore it. I mentioned that the 512(h) thing the plaintiff is relying on is not the law in the Ninth Circuit. I'm aware that two other circuits have looked at it (8th Cir. and D.C. Cir., if memory serves). However, I think you're focusing on the wrong thing by looking at "legal threats." The issue with this motion is whether Rightscorp's use of the 512(h) subpoena process is abuse of process. Given that the Ninth Circuit has never ruled on 512(h), I think it's not. Rightscorp can in good faith use the 512(h) subpoena process, and such is protected by the petition and free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The "legal threats," as you put it, are not at issue.
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re:
Law is hard, especially when you don't do research.
On the post: Warner Bros. And Rightscorp Argue That Copyright Trolling Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re:
LOL
Yeah, that's one of the funnier things Mike has ever claimed. Funny how blinded he is by his own double standards. Funny too how he completely ignores the part of the First Amendment (and the anti-SLAPP statute) that refers to the right of petition, and he pretends like the 512(h) thing is settled law when the Ninth Circuit has never addressed it. Reporting! Analysis! Techdirt!
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you research that issue? Did you research the history of how the DOJ conducts criminal trials? Did you research how US Attorneys often railroad innocent people just to keep their conviction rates up? Did you research the history of how the civil asset forfeiture process is abused?
No. Of course you didn't. You only pretend to do it when you want to attack Mike because you're a jealous, petty little man-child. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite all the time AJ.
Despite your abusiveness, I'm happy to respond to your point (though I think we're getting pretty meta here).
Not all opinions are the same. There are opinions based on dogged research, there are opinions based on nothing at all, and there are opinions that fall somewhere in between. I began the second sentence you quoted with "I assume." This was intended to signal to the reader that I'm about to offer something on the conjecture end of the spectrum. I literally indicated that it was an assumption before saying it.
That's quite different than the opinion I have about Dotcom's guilt. For that opinion, I relied primarily on the government's superseding indictment and the summary of the evidence: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-edva/legacy/2013/12/20/Certified%20Mega%20Supersedin g%20Indictment%20%282-16-2012%29.pdf & http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-edva/legacy/2013/12/20/Mega%20Evidence.pdf I relied on the whole thing, not ignoring the parts I didn't like.
I also based it of the filings from both parties, as well as the judge's rulings, all of which I've read. On top of that, I've done extensive research into criminal copyright infringement, reading many treatises, decisions, law reviews, etc. My opinion there is well-formed and well-supported. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum from conjecture.
I'm not jealous, but I can certainly be petty at times. I don't think I'm being petty here with my criticism of Mike's predictable defense of Dotcom. Mike is looking at the same sources at me, and, frankly, he's reaching ridiculous opinions that just aren't supported in reality. I'm not saying all of his points are ridiculous. On the contrary, he makes good points sometimes. That's why I read Techdirt.
But some of his claims aren't defensible, and it clear that he's not interesting in trying to defend them. He often states these things as fact, when oftentimes they're debatable at best and lies at worst. The difference between us is that Mike has no problem stating unsupported opinions as fact, while I prefer to do my homework beforehand. The irony is that his blog posts constantly call out the shortcomings in others, yet he's so sensitive and dismissive of his own faults.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you please answer the question?
I made clear that I haven't given it much thought, and I'm not aware of the arguments for and against. I like to research issues before forming an opinion on them, unlike many people on Techdirt, especially Mike. That said, even if there is no underlying conviction, there is nonetheless a forfeiture action where the burden is on the government to prove the property is forfeitable. The underlying crime and the property's connection to it still has to be proved. There's ample due process protections for property owners. They, of course, have to submit to the court's jurisdiction first. Dotcom wanted to show up in court to protect his property, but he didn't want to face his charges in that same court. He wants the benefits, but not the burdens, of the legal system. I don't think that's right. I assume he didn't show up to defend his property for the same reason he's fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he's going to lose. To answer your question to the best of my ability, I don't think it's necessarily unjust and improper, given the procedural protections. I think there might be policy reasons out there that would make me see it differently, but I just haven't really looked into it. I understand that some think the process is being abused, but I don't really know either way. Abuse is wrong, and I'm against it. But with Dotcom, I don't see abuse. What do you think?
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a fact. The indictment alleges many acts of direct infringement, for example, scraping YouTube and posting a pre-release version of the movie "Taken," yet Mike has several posts claiming the government's legal case makes no sense, and he makes no mention of these allegations. This has been pointed out to Mike many times, yet he never admits these allegations even exist. It's weird how you don't call him out for it.
Out of context, cherry-picked evidence....yeah, that wouldn't be real convincing to me if I was on the jury.
How are the emails where the coconspirators discuss how they're scraping YouTube at Dotcom's insistence out of context and cherry picked? How are the files on the Megaupload servers that resulted from that scraping out of context and cherry picked? What about the movie "Taken"? How are the emails and the file itself out of context and cherry picked? No wonder you won't fault Mike for intentionally lying about the existence of these allegations. You can't even admit them yourself.
Good question. Now thanks to the efforts of the USG we will never actually know.
This is the best answer you, Mike, or his best bud Dotcom, can come up with. It's not an answer. Note how no one can even hypothesize about any particular relevant evidence that has been lost. It's a stupid argument, and it will be rejected like so many of the other stupid arguments in support of Dotcom.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure you've already made up your mind about me before you asked the question. That said, what's decided by the court is whether the property is forfeitable by a preponderance of the evidence. You're suggesting a higher burden of proof, essentially, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know enough about the policy reasons for using preponderance. I believe it comes from admiralty/maritime law. It seems to me that much of our property is susceptible to being taken away based on only a preponderance. Think tort law. If the burden of proof for forfeitures were raised, I wouldn't really have an opinion on it until I understood the issues better. I don't have a sufficient grasp of the pros and cons, so I don't really have opinion. Judge away!
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you cut off my point about Mike intentionally misrepresenting the government's allegations. I don't agree that Dotcom has not been permitted to mount a viable defense. He's got extensive legal representation in two different countries. They're throwing out every argument they can think of and appealing everything that doesn't stick. He getting better representation than most. If you're referring to the server thing, I don't think there's been any exculpatory evidence destroyed. The government has the server logs, the chats and emails (which amazingly seem to have been plaintext), the bank receipts, etc. What relevant information was on the servers that were lost? Wasn't it just files stored by third parties that are not part of the government's case? How could those possibly be exculpatory? Even if the government stipulates that each and every file lost were noninfringing, that doesn't help Dotcom. No one can even posit a guess about what might possibly have been lost that was relevant. Besides, if the government destroyed evidence, that would help Dotcom. That's the last thing the government wants to do.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
Did I operate a service in Russia, from servers hosted in Russia, making millions of dollars that I routed through Russian banks, while intentionally violating the rights of thousands of people in Russia? That would make it more of the same thing.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been reading the briefing from both sides. On the merits of the alleged crime, I've read the superseding indictment, and in these very comments, I've outlined several examples of alleged direct criminal infringement by Dotcom and friends. These aren't third parties. These are the alleged principal coconspirators. Yet, Mike has been writing about this case for years, always questioning the government's case, yet never acknowledging the alleged direct criminal infringement. Funny how you fault me for reaching an opinion based on the indictment, but you don't fault Mike for purposely ignoring the parts of the indictment he doesn't like while spouting legal opinions he won't back up in the comments.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Police brutality is criminal and wrong. The government here is playing by the book. Dotcom wanted the benefits of being able to defend his property in the court, but not the burden of submitting himself to the court to face his criminal charges. I see no reason why he should get it both ways. Why should the court permit him to assert his rights when he's dodging his responsibilities to that same court?
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re:
If you pick up the phone in the United States and threaten to kill someone on the other end in New Zealand, you've committed a crime in New Zealand, whether you've ever set foot there or not. Dotcom's ties to the United States were significant, including many servers in Virginia, where he's being charged. That seems to be his biggest mistake jurisdiction-wise.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re:
I am gloating. I applaud the hardworking government actors who are bringing Dotcom to justice, kicking and screaming as he is. I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights. Kudos on a job well done.
Next >>