Justice Department Continues Handwaving To Avoid Facing Up To Its Questionable Behavior In Taking Down Megaupload

from the quick,-look-over-there! dept

We already wrote about the motions from Megaupload, the MPAA and Kyle Goodwin, concerning Goodwin's attempts to regain access to the backup files he uploaded to Megaupload. However, there is also the Justice Department's own filing, which deserves its own separate post.

As we noted a little over a week ago, Goodwin, represented by the EFF, was using Goodwin's attempt to retrieve his data to also seek to unseal the seizure order that led to Megaupload's servers being taken. The Justice Department clearly does not want that, and you can see it by the way in which it hits back at Goodwin. It insists that Goodwin hasn't done nearly enough to prove that he actually has "property" hosted on those servers:
To date, Mr. Goodwin has failed to make such a showing – he has not shown that he has a cognizable, legal interest in property seized by the government, nor has he shown a deprivation of a property interest based on any government seizure.... The only facts submitted to the Court by Mr. Goodwin regarding his interest in the servers imaged by the government are in a declaration he submitted in support of Non-Party Carpathia Hosting’s Emergency Motion for a Protective Order where he states he used Megaupload’s service.... However, if mere use of the service was sufficient to create a legal ownership interest in servers leased by Megaupload from Carpathia, then there could be hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of “owners” of each and every single Carpathia server. Such a result is absurd. Cf. Board of Public Utility Comm’rs v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 271 U.S. 23, 32 (1923) (“Customers pay for the service, not for the property used to render it . . . . By paying bills for service they do not acquire any interest, legal or equitable, in the property used for their convenience[.]”).
Talk about willfully misrepresenting Goodwin's position... Goodwin isn't claiming a property interest because he used the service, but because he uploaded his own content. He's not claiming a property interest in Megaupload, but just in the data he uploaded. Apparently the DOJ is trying out diversion techniques to hide from the real issue.

The DOJ then goes on to state, by footnote, that they believe that even if Goodwin's content was taken down by the government's actions, that's okay because he was probably infringing anyway:
Based on the government’s review of Mr. Goodwin’s website, ohiosportsnet.tv, the list of files uploaded by a Megaupload user using the account name “ohiosportsnet,” and the MD5 hash values of those files, it is not clear that Mr. Goodwin or his company owns the rights to all the data that he (or others using the “ohiosportsnet” account) uploaded to Megaupload. Numerous videos produced by Mr. Goodwin have as their soundtracks recordings of popular copyrighted music. Many videos on his website begin with a statement describing the copyrighted music and including a disclaimer such as “we don’t own the rights.” In addition, the “ohiosportsnet” account at Megaupload had uploaded numerous music files, including music files with MD5 values that matched the hash values of pirated versions of popular music. Even assuming Mr. Goodwin has not contracted his rights to any data uploaded to Megaupload away, the extent and nature of those rights may vary file to file.
Indeed, the nature of the rights may, in fact, vary file to file. And that's true of everything hosted on Megaupload... or any other server online. And yet, the DOJ's own actions were to take down the whole damn thing, ignoring the fact that there was plenty of legitimate and non-infringing content there. Yet now it wants to parse carefully about how each file may have different rights? Really?

Furthermore, as the EFF has pointed out in an interview with Tim Lee at Ars Technica, the DOJ's admission that they specifically looked up Goodwin's Megaupload account raises other serious questions about the DOJ abusing its powers:
But Samuels says it's the government who has some explaining to do. "The government's approach should terrify any user or provider of cloud computer services," Samuels told Ars by e-mail. "The government apparently searched through the data it seized for one purpose, in order to use it against someone who was hurt by its actions but who is plainly not the target of any criminal investigation, much less the one against Megaupload."

Samuels told us that the government's response to Goodwin's petition demonstrates "that if users try to get their property back, the government won't hesitate to comb through it to try to find an argument to use against them."
From there, the DOJ continues its sleight of hand tricks, by claiming that if Goodwin has any issue it's with Carpathia (the hosting company) or Megaupload, since his contracts are limited to them:
Any ownership interest by Mr. Goodwin in that data would be limited by at least two separate agreements: (1) the contract between Carpathia and Megaupload regarding Megaupload’s use of Carpathia servers; and, more specifically, (2) the written agreement between Megaupload and Mr. Goodwin regarding use of Megaupload’s service. Those contracts not only bind Mr. Goodwin’s use of Megaupload’s service and Carpathia’s servers, they also likely limit any property interest he may have in the data stored on Carpathia’s property.
This conveniently ignores that the DOJ ran roughshod over any agreements and just took the whole damn thing down, and then told Carpathia to delete all the evidence. It would seem that those actions have some bearing on the legal proceedings of the guy who'd just like his data back.

Basically, the government, as it's known to do, is playing hardball here. It doesn't want its own actions looked at closely, so it's challenging Goodwin's credibility while insisting that if anything does go forward, it's focused very very narrowly on Goodwin's specific situation, rather than the government's giddy bull-in-a-china-shop routine that created this mess in the first place.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 6:17am

    I think the DOJ should be immediately extinguished because their secret actions are probably violating the Constitution. Sounds fair according to DOJ reasoning.

    I think Megaupload case should be dismissed because the US Govt failed to obey New Zeland court orders so they are probably trying to delay the hearings.

    It's amusing how they keep shooting their own feet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:50am

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165657

    Kim Dotcom is not going away and is going to host his new service at me.ga

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:51am

    But... you have nothing to hide because you have nothing to fear, right? Or am I confused?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:51am

    Re:

    Yeah I agree, I wonder what the DOJ through the NZ prosecutors are going to come up with in order to get out of complying with the NZ appeal court ruling (if they uphold the previous court ruling of course) that they MUST give fuller disclosure of evidence of the Megaupload case before the extradition hearing. If the Prosecution don't comply I hope the NZ court then dismisses the extradition on grounds that the DOJ/Prosecution refuses to comply with NZ court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:54am

    The interesting thing is how can they turn it around on him? I am not one but if I was a pirate, I would have just re-downloaded whatever I lost in the seizure. The fact that he is pursuing this means that his data is most likely legit and any music or video files are not infringing but most likely backups.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:54am

    If Mr Goodwin did have files on Megaupload that were not his or even had files that were indeed copyright infringement then would he go to all this time and cost in taking the matter of getting his geting his files back if they were not his or were copyright infringment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:54am

    Just looking to see what Goodwin's account has done has altered the evidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    JWW (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:55am

    Take note

    Those of you who like the phrase, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" take note.

    The government's actions here prove that they will go to drastic lengths to prove you've done "something" wrong, and then trample on your rights accordingly.

    I always love the authorities stating that ignorance of the laws is no defense. But in these days of thousand page laws that or representatives don't even read, how can we be expected to really "know" the law? It all becomes an excuse to fish for any reason to exert control over the people.

    Our founding fathers believed that is was more benefical to let some of the guilty go free than to risk punishing innocent people.

    Our current government now believes that no one can be innocent....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:59am

    To Be Consistent

    Since I don't believe "content" is property, and he doesn't own the physical hard drives in question, I have to agree with the justice department here: he has no actual property at stake.

    I don't think, however, that this is the kind of argument that an MPAA/RIAA-controlled justice department would like to have on the books.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:00am

    How can the DOJ or US governement go through Mr Goodwins account without a password to get information. If they can do this then surely they can do this for account on Megaupload. I would guess they went through his account to see if they can find anything illegal to use against him to make certain that he does not get his files back.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:02am

    Re: Take note

    When people have to prove they are innocent, the whole system is a failure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Me again, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:03am

    Re:

    If you have nothing to hide, you have even more to fear, because everyone has something to hide according to the authorities. They will stop at nothing to prove you do, even if it means breaking our own laws. Nice huh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:03am

    Re:

    You have nothing to fear so long as you're using a service or platform that absolutely, 100% guaranteed, can never and will never be used for something that offends the **AAs.

    That it's impossible for such a thing to exist is just something they'd like you to overlook.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:03am

    Re: To Be Consistent

    If content is not property as you state then this will no doubt screw up the prosecution case that there has been theft of copyright. If theft relates to property and content is not property then there has been no theft so the DOJ has no case against copyright theft and file sharing can not be theft either because it is content and content is not property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    wec, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:05am

    Re: Take note

    Well, doesn't the Bible infer that everybody is a sinner. Therefore, nobody is innocent. (Paraphrase Jesus: May those without sin cast the first stone.) The government seems to have decided that the Bible is a law higher than the Constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:07am

    Re: To Be Consistent

    "I don't think, however, that this is the kind of argument that an MPAA/RIAA-controlled justice department would like to have on the books."

    I disagree with you about data not being valuable property, but I have to agree with that last part. It's beyond bizarre for the DOJ to claim in an infringement case that content is not property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Take note

    Even the DOJ will make the bible guilty of breaking the law if it is faced with investigating the bible of something criminal if it came down to it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: To Be Consistent

    The NZ prosecution argued that the transferring of data from Dotcoms home to the US was not theft because data was not property or something like that. Wouldn't be surprised that the DOJ will use this argument in the US case. NZ court found and ruled that the transferring of data was illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:14am

    Objection!

    '...it's focused very very narrowly on Goodwin's specific situation, rather than the government's giddy bull-in-a-china-shop routine that created this mess in the first place.'

    As mythbusters have shown on one of their episodes, a bull, or even multiple bulls place in a (faux)china shop is actually very careful not to break anything.

    As such, comparing a bull, who is clearly able to act in a manner that minimizes damage to it's surrounding, to the DoiJ, who clearly lacks this ability, is a slight on the good name and reputations of bulls everywhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:14am

    Content IS property: but data on any particular computer is not.

    It's you guys who are attempting to reverse the facts here.

    You've said over and over that uploading. "file-sharing", doesn't harm anyone because they still have their data.

    But now this knucklehead allegedly can't get his data and suddenly you and EFF claim he's got a property right in it.

    And yet again, if he didn't back it up locally, TOUGH! He can't claim a loss if his file-host went down for any other reason, dang it. Many HAVE actually lost their work of years when a file-host made changes, and it's just plain gone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:19am

    Re: Content IS property: but data on any particular computer is not.

    I think the DOJ have double standards when it comes to data. Here they will state that data is not property and yet will shout from the top of their voices in stating that data is property when it comes to suing people for copyright infringment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:21am

    A pirate apologist says what? Could you be anymore transparent?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Take note

    Perhaps we should have a mandatory jail sentence when anyone turns 18?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:26am

    Re: Content IS property: but data on any particular computer is not.

    "It's you guys who are attempting to reverse the facts here."

    No, it is you who has failed to understand them, which is par for the course.

    "You've said over and over that uploading. "file-sharing", doesn't harm anyone because they still have their data."

    Because in those cases, that's true. there are thousands or millions of copies of those works. Nothing has been lost except for a "potential sale", which often doesn't exist. They can still sell millions of DVDs if they want, sometimes to the same person who pirated.

    "But now this knucklehead allegedly can't get his data and suddenly you and EFF claim he's got a property right in it."

    Because, they have the *only copy* of the work. Are you so obtuse as to not see the slight difference between seizing the only existing copy of a work and taking one of billions? Sadly, you probably are.

    "And yet again, if he didn't back it up locally, TOUGH! He can't claim a loss if his file-host went down for any other reason, dang it. Many HAVE actually lost their work of years when a file-host made changes, and it's just plain gone."

    Can we apply that to the **AAs you obsessively defend, or does that only matter when someone not on their payroll loses something?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:29am

    Category error

    Insightful tweet in my feed:

    Julian Sanchez ‏@normative:

    _Watch for phrases like "infringing files" in Megaupload coverage. It's a category error. Works are copyrighted. People infringe._

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:40am

    Re:

    You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

    You have nothing to fear if you have something to hide.

    The above two statements do not contradict each other: fear is premised on uncertainty, so for you to experience fear, we make sure that you are utterly confused about the stuff you own.

    Your government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:40am

    Re: Re: Re: To Be Consistent

    The DOJ needs to keep the same definitions for all of their dealings. If transfering the Data from Dotcom to the US was not theft, then surely people uploading it from themselves or any other source to Megaupload could not have been theft. If there has been no theft, how can their possibly be a case?

    I'm sorry to say it but despite the massive economic upheavel a total collapse of the US is likely to cause for those in the near vacinity... it needs to happen. The US needs to bow out while it still has a sliver of dignity left and rebuild itself...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:42am

    Re: Category error

    Very good point, often missed in these discussions. The same file can be infringing or perfectly legal, depending on who uploaded it, who he's employed by, what permission he has from the copyright holder and the status of any contract, etc.

    That's why placing the onus on the service provider to filter files is never going to work properly - they're not privy to much of this information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: To Be Consistent

    My point exactly. Even though I agree with it, it's a weird point for them to try and make.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:44am

    Re: Content IS property: but data on any particular computer is not.

    "It's you guys who are attempting to reverse the facts here."

    Lol. Coming from you that's hilarious. You know nothing of Goodwin's case, as has been evident for some time now, yet you continue to state your opinion as fact regarding the issues at hand.

    "You've said over and over that uploading. "file-sharing", doesn't harm anyone because they still have their data."

    No, what has been stated is that file sharing is NOT theft because nothing has been taken, something additional has been created. Namely, a file that is a copy of the original. There's an addition.

    What has also been stated is that it doesn't harm anyone because there's no way to determine with any reasonable amount of accuracy whether or not a legitimate loss has taken place.

    "But now this knucklehead allegedly can't get his data and suddenly you and EFF claim he's got a property right in it."

    No, what is being stated is that Goodwin no longer has access to his files, he would like to get access to said files.

    For those in the class who are slower than others, namely YOU, what happened was that Goodwin kept copies of his files on Megaupload, in addition to locally storing them on his hard drive. Unfortunately, as does happen, his hard drive crashed and all the data was permanently lost locally. His only copies were on Megaupload, located on the servers that were seized/taken offline by the DOJ.

    To summarize, the ONLY copies of his files are in the hands of the DOJ. Well Carpathia actually, but the DOJ is refusing to let him get his files back for various reasons, most of which the courts are saying sound like bullsh*t.

    "And yet again, if he didn't back it up locally, TOUGH!"

    See, again, you know absolutely nothing about the case and yet you comment as if you do.

    He had local copies, they are now gone. Hard drive crash. It happens. Is it "TOUGH" in the way you mean it to be? No, it sucks. He did prepare properly though, cloud copies and locally stored copies. Unfortunately, his cloud copies are now being kept from him.

    "He can't claim a loss if his file-host went down for any other reason, dang it."

    Actually, he can. You know little about data or about the law. But he is legally entitled to the rightful return of his property. That's pretty much a given to anyone with a clue.

    "Many HAVE actually lost their work of years when a file-host made changes, and it's just plain gone."

    This has little to do with the situation that's occurred. And no, sorry to say, when a file host makes changes, the majority of the time, users files are NOT actually lost.

    Where you pulled that from I haven't the foggiest, but it's got no basis in reality.

    Seriously, OotB, get a clue and update yourself on what's going on before you come here spewing your nonsense. It'll make you look less like a fool/troll. Not that it matters, as you've already admitted you are exactly that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:50am

    Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    Reversing Mike's: "ignoring the fact that there was plenty of legitimate and non-infringing content there". -- So let this be clear warning that when your file-host is outside the law, you may lose your data -- if you're stupid enough to not have local copies. And you fanboys rush to defend this probably bogus claim that he lost "his" data. You even complain that DOJ can read the data! Man, sense you no make, just grab at any and every straw.


    BOOHOO, PIRATES! I just hope that DOJ learns better procedures for the next (hint, hint) and is ready for scurrilous bogus attacks from the EFF.


    [By the way, I'm with the DOJ on this only because they align with me, not the reverse. Megaupload was getting money from content it did not produce, which is immoral, unethical grifting, and certainly illegal at commercial scale.]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:55am

    Re: Category error

    I saw your little tweet praising the Chubby Messiah Dotcom. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:59am

    "You even complain that DOJ can read the data!"

    If indeed Mr Goodwins data was copyright infringement and not his files say the DOJ then they must have accessed his account to read the data to find out what they claim and state. Either the DOJ have read the data in his account or they are lying!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:01am

    Re: Content IS property: but data on any particular computer is not.

    Do you actually ever read anything without your anti-Techdirt filter in place?


    You've said over and over that uploading. "file-sharing", doesn't harm anyone because they still have their data.

    Goodwin was using Mega as a data backup and for sharing files with his employees and his physical drive holding his other copies failed around the same time as the seizures. He wasn't using Mega to infringe.



    But now this knucklehead allegedly can't get his data and suddenly you and EFF claim he's got a property right in it.

    Well of course he does - he is the rights holder of the content he created. Are you disputing he owns the rights to the video he created?



    And yet again, if he didn't back it up locally, TOUGH! He can't claim a loss if his file-host went down for any other reason, dang it. Many HAVE actually lost their work of years when a file-host made changes, and it's just plain gone.

    This is true. The part you conveniently leave out is that this is a result of the actions United States government and not some private entity. They are *supposed* to minimize the impact on innocent parties, especially when it involves any form of speech. The USG clearly didn't do that here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Brent (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:02am

    Re: To Be Consistent

    so you believe that digital files are not property and therefore cannot be owned? I don't understand that rationale, can you expand on that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:02am

    Re: Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    "Megaupload was getting money from content it did not produce"

    Has Dotcom been found guilty of such a thing in a court case trial? I must have missed something. This is just something that the DOJ are stating but so far has not been proved in a court case trial and Dotcom has not been found guilty of such.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Jeff (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Category error

    go away little trolloholio... you don't *know* anything...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:13am

    Re: Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    BOOHOO, PIRATES! I just hope that DOJ learns better procedures for the next (hint, hint)...

    Me too. Like not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


    ...and is ready for scurrilous bogus attacks from the EFF.

    Wow. Scurrilous bogus attacks? Really?

    Apparently, supporting and defending the public's rights in our digital age is some sort of joke to you. I suppose you think the ACLU is just a bunch of hilarious hippie lovers too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Brent (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:14am

    government knows that one misstep, slack in scrutiny, or the slightest concession will result in a HUGE blow back. they won't give this up until the Courts finally do their job, remain impartial and rule in favor of the written law like they are supposed to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:15am

    Re: Content IS property: but data on any particular computer is not.

    YOU don't HAVE anything SUBSTANTIAL to SAY.

    Adding CAPITAL letters WILL NOT make it LOOK better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:18am

    The government is basically saying that he can't have any property interest in digital content.

    That's funny, because I thought it was Imaginary Property rights that got us in to this mess in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:19am

    Re: Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    "And you fanboys rush to defend this probably bogus claim that he lost "his" data."

    That's as far as any intelligent person should need to read. You've already reached a judgement against him, even though he himself doesn't even have access to the files in question, and you attack instead of discuss the specifics.

    When you're ready to discuss the truth rather that launch childish attacks and lies, maybe you'll get somewhere.

    "You even complain that DOJ can read the data!"

    Correction: DOJ can read it, EFF can not. Are you really saying there's no problem in the fairness of a court case when only the prosecution has access to the evidence?

    "Megaupload was getting money from content it did not produce"

    As does every site that includes some user interaction, commenting or uploading. I suggest you stop using them so you stop contributing to this - starting with this site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:20am

    Re: Re: To Be Consistent

    It's the same reason I don't believe in "intellectual property" of any sort, patents and copyrights included; they violate real property rights.

    If I own a pencil and a piece of paper, I should not be restricted from using the pencil on that piece of paper merely because someone else used their own pencil on their own piece of paper in a similar fashion in the past. To attempt to give someone a property right on "content" is to attempt to give them a property right in the real, physical goods, since they then become the deciders of how and when I can use that physical property.

    The institution of copyright itself is the real theft in society, and not the violation of copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:21am

    Re: Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    defend this probably bogus claim

    I hope you into accusers and judges that believe in the probability that you did something while denying you the right of looking at the evidence to confirm that probability. And I hope you are screwed royally by those 'probabilities'.

    Moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_mind, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:26am

    Re: Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    Left the glue containers wide open with the windows shut again today huh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:36am

    Re: Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    Yeah, I guess we should all make sure a country doesn't have any crime before we live in it, lest we lose all our rights for living in a country that is clearly a "crime apologist".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:37am

    And why aren't you "re-routing around the damage"?

    You fanboys pretty much assured us that sites couldn't be taken out, and the data would still be out there.

    I'm intentionally giving you a lead in tip to:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2221552/kim-dotcom-introduces-mega-to-the-world

    H ow long does it take Techdirt monkeys to re-write? You should be all over that, been up for hours, besides days of prior notice for his new pirate site.

    By the way, how long did it take you guys to recover from your shock at DOJ just plain seizing it? I totally don't follow Techdirt except when I visibly do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:38am

    Re:

    I just wish that them -shooting their own feet- actually hurt them. After all this is said and done they will still -walk- away from it just fine and commit the same atrocities all over again against somebody else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    surfer (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:43am

    speaking of probability..

    one point no one is considering here. Mega is on trial, not this guy's files. to legally review his accounts contents, there would have to be probable cause, and a warrant to search thru his content.

    **AA scrutiny of his content is so far outside juristiction, justice itself, constitutional rights, and serious privacy violations; irrespective of what is contained in the account, that it just baffles the mind.

    its no longer, do as i say, not as i do, its more like;
    fuck you, and i will do whatever the fuck i want.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:44am

    In addition to illegally seizing the servers, the DOJ has now illegally tampered with their contents. I wouldn't be surprised if any future complainers were found to have data on those servers linking them to terrorist cells. How convenient that they don't need a warrant or a trial to kill terrorists that these days...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:45am

    Let's get this straight

    Any ownership interest by Mr. Goodwin in that data would be limited by at least two separate agreements: (1) the contract between Carpathia and Megaupload regarding Megaupload’s use of Carpathia servers; and, more specifically, (2) the written agreement between Megaupload and Mr. Goodwin regarding use of Megaupload’s service.
    This argument is insane. If the safety deposit boxes at a bank were robbed, and the robber tells everyone that they did it, would the DoJ tell people stolen from that their issue would be with the bank and the bank's security firm, not with the robber? These dolts are asinine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Brent (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re: Re: To Be Consistent

    ok thanks for the explanation. I understand your point but it is important to be able to assign ownership of digital 'things' since their real world value is ever increasing. a new definition needs to be devised that works with modern technology, i agree with you there. copyright was only intended to protect written/printed words so its understandable that it doesn't work with 'things' that are never physically written or printed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:09am

    Re: And why aren't you "re-routing around the damage"?

    "You fanboys pretty much assured us that sites couldn't be taken out, and the data would still be out there."

    Lets see how long the new Mega holds out to the US. Lets hope the new Mega holds out for at least 10 years . If The Pirate Bay can hold out for 10 years lets hope the new Mega lasts as long.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Jeff (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:13am

    Re: And why aren't you "re-routing around the damage"?

    I don't normally comment on Techdirt - but when I do I go batshit insane!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:17am

    Re: Let's get this straight

    If Carpethia and Megaupload is responsible for the returning of files then how can they be the ones repsponsible when the US government is refusing to allow Carpethia and Megaupload to switch on the servers to allow the users to get the files back. The US government are saying that its Carpethia's and Meguapload who are responsible and yet the US government are holding both Carpethia and Megupload to ransom with being allowed to giving the users back their files. It is the US government who is at fault here because of they are the ones who shutdown the servers and Megupload and now holding them both to ransom with refusing them to continue with their business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:29am

    Re:

    what?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Category error

    You're actually making the Westboro Baptitst Church look intelligent. This is not a good thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    RichS (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Take note

    Don't give them any ideas

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: To Be Consistent

    The US needs to bow out while it still has a sliver of dignity left and rebuild itself...


    In all of human history, two things hold true about global empires: they all fall, and they never do so with even a sliver of dignity intact.

    The US is no different.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:43am

    The DOJ was is afraid

    The DOJ is afraid that people were forgetting that they are incompetent stooges acting on behalf of major corporations. They just wanted to make sure that everyone was reminded of that fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: Take note

    "Well, doesn't the Bible infer that everybody is a sinner. Therefore, nobody is innocent. (Paraphrase Jesus: May those without sin cast the first stone.) The government seems to have decided that the Bible is a law higher than the Constitution."

    If they really did that, the country might not be in the awful mess it's in now. Even that quote you used was said in mercy. At the time, the religious leaders of the day had caught a woman in the act of adultery and brought her before Jesus. The prescribed punishment for such an act under their laws was death by stoning. They wanted to find some way to put Jesus into a position where he would say something, anything that they could use to discredit him. If he said that she was free to go, they could have used that as an example that he didn't follow the(ir) religious laws of the day. If he said to stone her, they probably would have found some way to twist that against him as well.

    Instead, he said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". At that, all of the men gradually walked away. In the end, it was only Jesus and the woman. He actually was without sin, according to the Bible, yet he offered not condemnation, but mercy.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8&version=NIV

    The Bible does state that everyone is a sinner, but Jesus's goal is not punishment, but instead mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:46am

    After sending a copy of the hard drive evidence in New Zealand back to the US, when the judge demanded it to be returned, the DoJ claimed they had not stolen the evidence because the original physical hard drives still remained in possession of the New Zealand police. Seems they knew the difference between theft and a copy then. The same exact argument file sharers make about copies.

    But again according to the logic being displayed here over not returning the files to the innocent, the DoJ is claiming that collateral damage to those losing those copies is ok. Just as well say, "Gee, we own the whole apartment block because we busted one renter that had drugs". Doesn't make any sense.

    It is my hope that the judge makes the MPAA pay Carpathia for the cost of warehousing the servers while all this is settled.

    Seems to me that the New Zealand cops had a problem with encryption of the files taken from Kim's residence. Kim was not willing to give the password to open them unless he got a copy for forming up his defense. So how is it that the US is now able to open up these files and look at them? If they did, didn't they break the law in the process of unlocking the digital key? Another hmmm moment of out many?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:47am

    Re: And why aren't you "re-routing around the damage"?

    People are re-routing around the 'damage' the re-route involved moving to systems obfustication and encrypted systems in the "Deep Web" (see This article )

    People who want a simple solution (and not as worried about remaining anonymous) are using newsgroups as new programs have popped up to simplify searching, downloading, and merging files.

    Piracy hasn't stopped or slowed. Mega is re-routing by relocating to me.ga, changing servers, and getting the damage (read "USA") out of their pipeline.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:51am

    Evidence tampering

    The DOJ had to turn on and go digging through the servers to even have the knowledge they used in their ridiculous argument. Which means the servers have been accessed by the DOJ prior to the trial.

    In other words, going by their track record on this case, I think we can all fully expect to see evidence tampering and planted evidence on the servers before this is all over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    I don't know if they actually broke the encryption. If I remember right, most of the argument is based on the MD5 hash, which I think you can see without needing to break encryption.

    That's also why the "infringing content" part is so silly, seeing as how it relies solely on the MD5 hash.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Re:

    He had videos that he had made for a small youth sports league IIRC. Some of those videos may, in fact, have had popular music recordings as a background, as I have seen many parents make "last soccer season" videos in a similar fashion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Dirkmaster (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Goodwin ignored the illegal infringing content on Megaupload.

    "Megaupload was getting money from content it did not produce"

    Yeah, so do DropBox and Amazon. Is Amazon D3 grifting? No? Then what's the difference? Cloud backup is cloud backup.

    Or are gun manufacturers guilty because someone uses one to commit a crime? Are silverware manufacturers responsible for the obesity of those who use forks to eat? How many people have to do an illegal thing with something legal before the owner/manufacturer becomes guilty?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    DOJ Shove it up your ASS !!! You have broken our Constitutional Laws and you have broken our Criminal Code.
    DOJ You are the Criminals and you will not win out.
    Even as you keep talking your BS KD is bringing MU back and it will be encrypted, no logs kept, and Servers all in Nations your filthy hands will never touch.
    Just keep digging your grave DOJ.There are Millions of People here and Overseas which is watching you and paying attention to your breaking of our own Laws and Foundation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re:

    There's also the issue that the user's account login would have been password protected, so regardless of what was in there or whether it was encrypted, the DOJ would have had to break into his account, and they did so without a warrant or any kind of due process.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 2:31pm

    so who was present when DoJ accessed Goodwin's files? who ensured that DoJ didn't alter anything Goodwin had on these servers, delete anything he had on those servers or add anything to his account? i assume, no one. in other words there is no proff that they didn't tamper with his files.

    also curious as to the response was from Goodwin and/or hid representatives from the EFF over what the DoJ has done and what they have accused him of.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Content IS property: but data on any particular computer is not.

    "And yet again, if he didn't back it up locally, TOUGH!"

    And yet again, I and others will correct you on this point, because you're either too stupid to understand, or you're just another troll spouting things you know are untrue. MegaUpload was his back-up, and when his hard drive crashed he found that his back-up had been taken down by a government agency who seem to be be completely bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

    He's not a knucklehead, he's unlucky.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Re:

    Which may or may not be fair use, without haveing seen review or context.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:07pm

    "...if not hundreds of thousands, of “owners” of each and every single Carpathia server. Such a result is absurd."

    Shareholders. What an absurd thought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Take note

    "The Bible does state that everyone is a sinner, but Jesus's goal is not punishment, but instead mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation."

    While your conclusions are correct and a much better way to look at quotes like this, the Bible does, in fact, say all are sinners:

    "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

    Still, the idea of focusing on forgiveness and mercy vs. condemnation and judgement is a much better way to look at things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 11:08am

    > Talk about willfully misrepresenting
    > Goodwin's position... Goodwin isn't
    > claiming a property interest because he
    > used the service, but because he uploaded
    > his own content.

    Funny how content suddenly ceases to become property when it's inconvenient for the government/industry.

    All this talk of 'stealing' and 'theft', and the moment someone accuses *them* of theft, they suddenly do a 180 and claim there's no property interest in data stored on servers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This