Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant

from the more-problems dept

Lawyers for Megaupload have filed a motion with the court handling the US side of the prosecution against the company, arguing that the original warrants were defective due to blatant misrepresentations by the government. As you may recall, in the case involving Kyle Goodwin, a Megaupload user who is trying to get his data back, he had to ask the court to unseal the warrant the DOJ used to seize Megaupload because the government had kept it secret. While the Justice Department went ballistic trying to prevent this unsealing, the judge allowed it to happen. And it didn't take long to figure out why the DOJ preferred to keep it private because among a bunch of problems, was the big one: a key bit of evidence that the DOJ used against Megaupload to prove that it had "knowledge" of illegal activity on its servers existed because the government -- via service provider Carpathia -- had explicitly told Megaupload to hold onto certain data since it was a part of a criminal investigation.

As Megaupload points out in this filing, it's particularly ridiculous that Megaupload was told to hold onto certain information as part of a criminal investigation -- to which it complied -- and then that very fact is being used against it, because it didn't delete the info. And, of course, the DOJ didn't explain the context in getting the warrant.

This Court recently ordered the unsealing of the documents previously submitted by the United States to support taking down the Megaupload cloud storage site by seizing the domain name(s) --- such unsealing lays bare a crucial omission the Government made to the Court in the secret process.  Specifically, the Government’s affidavits underpinning the warrants omitted critical, exculpatory information regarding whether, why and how Megaupload knew it was hosting criminally infringing files.  The Government represented that, “[o]n or about June 24, 2010, members of the Mega Conspiracy were informed, pursuant to a criminal search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting, a hosting company headquartered in the Eastern District of Virginia,” and that, “[a]s of November 18, 2011, thirty-six of the thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were still being stored on servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy,” after it was informed of the infringing content.... This snippet—which appears in each relevant affidavit and is the only direct, corroborated evidence the Government purports to offer as proof that Megaupload had requisite knowledge—suggests that Megaupload was warned of its potentially criminal complicity yet persisted in hosting the files without concern for their illegal content.  The affidavits, in short, paint Megaupload as a brazen scofflaw. 

The truth, as the Government well knows, is quite different.  Megaupload had every reason to retain those files in good faith because the Government had sought and obtained Megaupload’s cooperation in retrieving the files and warned that alerting users to the existence of the warrant and the Government’s interest in the files could compromise the investigation.  Carpathia informed Megaupload that the warrant was sealed, and that only Carpathia and Megaupload, not the users of the infringing files, were to know of its existence, and at the Government’s request provided Megaupload a copy of the sealing order. The Government selectively parsed its account so as to exclude critical facts that negate any notion that Megaupload had criminal mens rea to retain the infringing files.  The Government deliberately neglected to apprise the Court that:

  •       Megaupload received the June 24, 2010 warrant in the course of cooperating with a Government investigation; 
  •       Megaupload was informed of the June 24, 2010 warrant by its vendor, Carpathia Hosting (“Carpathia”), with the Government’s consent and for the express purpose of obtaining Megaupload’s voluntary assistance with executing the warrant;
  •       The Government declined to communicate directly with Megaupload about the warrant, instead deputizing Carpathia to communicate on its behalf;
  • Carpathia directed Megaupload not to open “EM7 tickets” on the infringing files—which would have alerted a larger number of people to the existence of the warrant and jeopardized the secrecy of the investigation—“[b]ecause of the Government’s seal on the warrant,” asking that Megaupload instead deal directly with a single person at Carpathia;
  • Megaupload’s preservation of the status quo, particularly by not taking down or otherwise disturbing the files identified in the June 24, 2010 warrant, was faithful to the Government’s express desire, reflected by the Magistrate Judge’s order sealing the warrant (provided to Megaupload by Carpathia at the Government’s request) and by Carpathia’s instructions on the Government’s behalf, for Megaupload to ensure that evidence would remain preserved and that the target users would remain unaware of the investigation; and
  • Consistent with its stated desire that the warrant and investigation remain confidential so as not to tip off the target users, the Government—neither directly nor through Carpathia—ever requested that Megaupload take down the files identified in the June 24, 2010 warrant.
Megaupload is now arguing that the warrant and the seizure itself were defective and need to be overturned based on the fact that they were completely misleading on this bit evidence. In fact, the government specifically appears to have instructed Carpathia to tell Megaupload (1) to retain the files in question and (2) that Megaupload was not the subject of the investigation:
Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that its June 24, 2010 warrant had been calculated to enlist good-faith cooperation with a criminal investigation, while preserving the secrecy thereof. Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that the Government had sought Megaupload's voluntary assistance in executing the warrant. Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Carpathia had assured Megaupload, in the interests of its requested cooperation, that there was no basis to believe that Megaupload was a target. Nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Megaupload had in fact cooperated precisely as requested. Most importantly and most troublingly, nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Megaupload had been informed by Carpathia, acting on behalf of the Government and heeding the Government's insistence upon sealing, that the secrecy of the warrant and the Government's investigation must be preserved to avoid destruction of evidence and notification of the targeted users. Nor did the Government inform this Court that the sealing order it had obtained and furnished Carpathia to provide to Megaupload likewise required secrecy and expressly specified that [redacted ]. In sum, nowhere did the Government tell this Court that Megaupload had done exactly what the Government had asked it to do--execute a search warrant without alerting the ostensible targets to the existence of an investigation. The Government's contention to this Court that Megaupload's preservation of the status quo was evidence of criminal intent is false, and deliberately so.
Attached is an exhibit in which Carpathia explicitly says it told the DOJ that Megaupload was happy to cooperate with the US government on such investigations.

Given its responses so far, I fully expect the government to go ballistic over this filing as well, but with each filing, their case looks weaker and weaker. As we've said in the past, it really does seem like DOJ agents were taken in by Hollywood's story about how Megaupload was pure evil and that was obvious to anyone -- and, as such, the DOJ could take various shortcuts in bringing the site and Kim Dotcom down. To be honest, what's still incredible to me about all of this is that, prior to the takedown, I probably would have agreed that Megaupload was likely a "bad player" in the space and that Dotcom had a reputation of thumbing his nose at the law. But as more and more details have become clear, it's looking more and more like the DOJ cut corners so badly that it's entire case may be at risk. If true, this will be a massive embarrassment for anyone at the DOJ associated with the case.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Aria Company (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 3:49am

    I don't believe there's any "misleading" going on here. The DoJ knew exactly what it was, er is, doing: keeping Megaupload off the internet.

    Even if the DoJ should "lose" this case, the damage has been done. Millions were lost, both data and money, and there's nothing MU can do to get any of it back.

    The executives of the MPAA and RIAA, to name two of many, should be personally sued to recoup those millions.

    If justice is indeed blind, she'll right this wrong. Though, I've a feeling her scales receive "campaign contributions" as well.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 5:52am

      Re:

      The Government is full of scumbags.And Hollywood can go lick my Dog's Butt.I am making sure that I never allow them a way into my wallet.Probably for the rest of my life.
      F#ck You MAFIAA ! Watched The Hobbit for free last night.
      That being said I will spend my Wallet on the Local Art here and will save some bucks for cool Indie Non-MAFIAA Art but as far as MAFIAA goes I no longer care or have any need to ever go near you again.
      You no longer really matter to me.Hope more folks join a real Boycott.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Mr. Applegate, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:24am

        Re: Re:

        "The Government is full of scumbags.And Hollywood can go lick my Dog's Butt."

        You would allow the MAFIAA to infect your dog? I am going to have to place a call to the ASPCA!

        I don't want the MAFIAA, or the government within 50 miles of me or my dog, let alone touching or licking any part. What, are you trying to bring on the Zompocalypse?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Stuart Gray, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:12am

        Re: Re:

        You are an idiot.
        You are the "Real Boycott"?
        The real boycott comes from those of us who choose not to participate in the MPAA economy.
        Watching the movie for free is not a boycott.
        Not watching the movie is.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          gigglehurtz (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 9:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm with those who believe that simply not watching any movies only serves to take you out of the equation. You're no longer a data point showing a demand for different terms.

          If you choose by your definition to truly boycott, that's fine, but in my opinion it only affects your own peace of mind. You become a non-entity to the entertainment industry and will have little to no effect on the outcome.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Mr. Applegate, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 11:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Seems to me that some time ago there were those that refused to pay the tax on tea. They did not refuse to drink tea, they only refused to pay a tax on the tea.

          So in fact gorehound would seem to be making a similar statement by watching a movie without paying for it.

          Simply choosing to 'not drink tea' would not have had the same profound effect as the actions taken some 240 years ago.

          Watching a movie for free is a form of boycott, in factone could argue that it is a more effective means since it can easily be counted as lost $$$$. When you refuse to even participate you can no longer be counted as a lost sale, you simply disappear.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 11:13am

      Re:

      who is the lead prosecutor in the megaupload case?

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 4:06am

    If true, this will be a massive embarrassment for anyone at the DOJ associated with the case.

    Hopefully it sparks some heavy scrutiny on their activities (wishful thinking I know). If anything the best part is that it's raising more and more awareness to the madness, to how absurd copyright is, to how the US Govt is at the pockets of the big corporations and so on.

    Awareness is key to start changing things.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      BentFranklin (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:01am

      Re:

      Sanctions and disbarment please!

       

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

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:55am

      Re:

      ...*or* does it spur on even greater efforts by 'our' (sic) gummint to squelch dissent, punish whistleblowers, intimidate (if not murder) journalists, and pass even more draconian laws ignoring/destroying what's left of the constitution ? ? ?

      i'm guessing *that* is the more likely reaction...

      *not* 'OMG we didn't realize we were screwing over the public and certain individuals for our own nefarious purposes. gee, thanks for pointing that out, citizen! we'll rectify that right away!'...

      uhhhh, no, that ain't happenin'...

      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Ninja (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:02am

        Re: Re:

        History tells us that you CANNOT silence the masses. Even when you manage to do it in the short term in the long term it'll fall apart. Awareness is the key either to avoid the worst scenario or to fix it when it comes. Unfortunately History also tells you that this process is seldom peaceful.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 11:11am

      Re:

      who is the lead prosecutor in the megaupload case?

       

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

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 4:46am

    If anyone at the DOJ losses their jobs over this they can take comfort in knowing that they will have a cushie job waiting for them at an MPAA affiliated company.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 4:47am

    If anyone at the DOJ losses their jobs over this they can take comfort in knowing that they will have a cushie job waiting for them at an MPAA affiliated company.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 5:45am

    I almost feel sorry for the DOJ pansies. This will hurt some carriers inside that organization.
    They got into a clusterfuck and there seems no easy way out of this shitestorm.

    DOJ 0 x 1 Megaupload.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 5:51am

    So, can someone remind me who the terrorists are again?

    Because I'm confused. The people who blew shit up in the name of a "holy war" are terrorists, sure. But what about those terrorists at home, who use money to leverage fear and uncertainty and destroy governmental credibility? Those are surely terrorists, as their sole purpose is to make money by any means necessary, including weakening governmental trust.

    So, surely, all involved in this particular case will be jailed without trail for years.

    OH, wait, this isn't a Magical Christmasland, this is reality. And it bytes.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:14am

      Re:

      But what about those terrorists at home, who use money to leverage fear and uncertainty and destroy governmental credibility? Those are surely terrorists, as their sole purpose is to make money by any means necessary, including weakening governmental trust.

      I'm sorry but did you just call most high ranking government officials terrorists, because they are doing the best job destroying all credibility of the government.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    TasMot (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 5:52am

    Responsibility

    The part that makes me really sad about this case is that the people who are supposed to be responsible for upholding justice are the ones that "cheated" to take down MegaUpload. As the farce that "was" this case unravels it is starting to prove just what a comedy of errors it was. All at the behest of Hollywood and their henchmen to punish its fans. What upsets me the most is that once this gets dropped because of all the mistakes that were made, I wouldn't be suprised if Dotcom turns around and sues the US over its blatant abuse, errors and bad faith prosecution and the US Taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. I see a very sad day coming for our wallet.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:40am

      Re: Responsibility

      Your claims are ridiculous. The government isn't just enforcing the law for Hollywood; copyright has existed for hundreds of years and will continue to exist.

      Which means the government that wrote the law is going to enforce it. Save your blood pressure and accept that.

      From the above article:
      a key bit of evidence that the DOJ used against Megaupload to prove that it had "knowledge" of illegal activity on its servers existed because the government -- via service provider Carpathia -- had explicitly told Megaupload to hold onto certain data since it was a part of a criminal investigation.

      And? So?

      Cooperating with the government on that request doesn't change the fact that the infringing material was there before the gov requested it stay. Along with untold other examples.

      Pretending that Megaupload's business model wasn't based around infringement is simply a non-starter. No one is naive about these things anymore.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:43am

        Re: Re: Responsibility

        So, MegaUpload is not responsible for their users actions. They would have promptly removed it had they not been told by the government to remove it but you knew that already and just enjoy being argumenative.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Keroberos (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 9:17am

          Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

          Plus, there's the added problem--without anyone telling them, how is Megaupload supposed to "know" these files are infringing. Seeing as how many times the rights holders get it wrong, how can a third party tell what's infringing and what's not? This is why we supposedly have the DMCA--to place the responsibility for identifying infringing content on the rights holders--where it should be, and placing the blame on the person that uploaded it--not some third party who has no way of knowing if the files are infringing or not.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        Ninja (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:06am

        Re: Re: Responsibility

        copyright has existed for hundreds of years and will continue to exist

        Your world must be a sad one because if you are talking about Earth then it's quite a few hundred years too much. Go read about it sonny, copyright is fairly new.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Ed C., Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:16am

        Re: Re: Responsibility

        No, the charge is that they knew those specific files were infringing AND refused to remove them. The problem is that they only knew about them because the government, via Carpathia, told them AND requested that the files NOT be removed!

        And pretending that millions of users weren't using Megaupload for legally owned files is simply a non-starter. Only people like you are naive about these things anymore.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re: Responsibility

        The part that makes is a crime is having definitive and specific knowledge there is infringing material and doing nothing to remove/stop it. Simple general knowledge is not sufficient.

        The items the DOJ tagged Mega with having knowledge of and doing nothing about are the ones they specifically told Mega to hold onto. This is the issue.

        DOJ: "Here's a court order saying don't touch X files."

        A few months later...

        DOJ: "You didn't remove X files, you're a felon as you knew they were infringing."

        Good ole damned if you do, damned if you don't...

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 12:31pm

        Re: Re: Responsibility

        Wow... What an interesting reality you must live in!

        Cooperating with the government on that request doesn't change the fact that the infringing material was there before the gov requested it stay. Along with untold other examples.

        Megaupload did not know the files were there until they were informed by the DOJ (via Carpathia) that the files existed on their servers and were in fact infringing. Megaupload did not put the files there, one of their customers did. Now if the rightsholders had informed MU that those files were infringing and requested them removed through a valid DMCA notice, MU's track record on compliance is well established, and they would have removed them.

        This. Is. Not. What. Happened.

        The DOJ identified the files as infringing, informed MU of their existence, and then told them (read this next part carefully) NOT TO REMOVE THEM OR TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION!!!

        Are you actually trying to argue that MU should be held liable as a 3rd party service provider for the actions of it's users that they were unaware of? Again, it must be a very interesting reality you live in... If you have the time please post directions on how to get there so the rest of us can avoid it.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 1:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

          The entire reason Megaupload got pinched was because of their US servers, thus making them obligated to follow the DMCA.

          Now, you can say that they honored DMCA requests, but unless they had a functioning repeat-infringer policy, then it is no surprise at all that the DOJ went after them.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Ed C., Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

            unless they had a functioning repeat-infringer policy, then it is no surprise at all that the DOJ went after them.

            Really? The government should have the right to seize assets and prosecute for not doing something that's totally beyond what the law requires? You should definitely put that on the cover letter for your job application to the MPAA and their puppet branch of the DOJ. You're definitely their brand of crazy.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:26pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

              You seem to be ignorant of the law and of the DMCA.

              If copyright infringement is occurring on your site and you do not have a repeat-infringer policy, then you lose any protection the DMCA provides you. And willful ignorance of what is happening on your site gets you laughed out of court and into jail.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Ed C., Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 3:15pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                Thanks, but I've read the DMCA. It's you who's trying to stretch the law to include things that it doesn't.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 1:48am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                That's not in the DMCA. What the hell are you trying to peddle?

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 4:22am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                  You're about as sharp as a marble, aren't you?

                  The DMCA was passed in 1998 and written into Title 17 of the US Code.

                  There are far more doltish pirates on here than I ever realized...

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 11:56am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    Yes, we know. And yet a repeat infringer policy is never mentioned in it. So you didn't actually address what was being discussed there, bringing your own 'sharpness' and 'doltishness' into question.

                     

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Wally (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 1:59pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    I redirect you to Section 512, Title 10, articles A, B, C, D, E, G, H, and J.

                    Megaupload is covered.

                     

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:11pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

            "The entire reason Megaupload got pinched was because of their US servers, thus making them obligated to follow the DMCA."

            Actually no, just because they used the servers of a company (Carpathia) located in the U.S. DOES NOT make them obligated to follow DMCA law.

            In point of fact, Megaupload followed DMCA procedure/law while not even being obligated to.

            "Now, you can say that they honored DMCA requests, but unless they had a functioning repeat-infringer policy, then it is no surprise at all that the DOJ went after them."

            What's interesting is that there is no "repeat-infringer policy" on the books, is there? I'm pretty sure DMCA safe harbor status basically says as long as they follow DMCA procedure (meaning they remove infringing works when made aware of it) they are granted safe harbor status.

            So yeah, it DOES come as a surprise that the DOJ went after them, especially if you're going to go with what you wrote in saying they are required to have a "functioning repeat-infringer policy". More so considering no such policy is required.

            As for "you can say that they honored DMCA requests", well it can be said because they did. You wrote that in a manner basically saying you do not believe they did, but which the facts and evidence have shown they did.

            But the long and short of it is that "Megaupload got pinched" because the copyright industries went crying to mommy and daddy to stop the big bad boogieman from letting the other kids take their stuff. Failing to note that the boogieman cannot control what others do or do not do, and cannot police something that they are not clearly made aware of. Saying infringement is taking place is like saying people somewhere are doing drugs right now. No sh*t, Sherlock. But those who have to deal with it must first know where in order to decide how to deal with it.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Gwiz (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

              What's interesting is that there is no "repeat-infringer policy" on the books, is there?

              There is according to EFF:

              http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/dmca-copyright-policies-staying-safe-harbors-while

              M ost of it appears to remain unclear and untested though.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                G Thompson (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:48pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                Though repeat infringer means that the person who is allegedly repeating there infringement has to actually be found guilty in a civil court of actually infringing. Otherwise it is just "allegedly repeat infringement by hearsay"

                This is the primary reason why no one in a civil situation as a plaintiff wants to test this. It would mean that a court would have to be fully involved throughout EVERY alleged infringement under the DMCA as well.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 4:18am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                  Uh, no.

                  A court trial is not necessary to prove infringement. Prima facie evidence is what is used in these instances.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    G Thompson (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 8:06am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    Prima facia evidence is ONLY a presumption of truth UNLESS questioned by respondent and for the civil preponderance to be actually proven other than by an ex parte hearing an onus on the plaintiff is still to have all defences covered by that first encountered/blush evidence.

                    A trial by a jury of peers is not required no, but if a court is told by Party A that party B has infringed and shows prima facia evidence and then Party B balks and brings up defences then again Infringement needs to be proven upon balance.

                    Oh and an IP address is NOT prima facia evidence of anything anywhere nor is an "under penalty of perjury" notice of infringement (the DMCA) signed by the plaintiff or there proxy.

                    So my statement of repeat infringer still stands. Even though the onus is stupidly upon the respondent to prove they are not guilty of infringement. Which might one day be a good reason for creating an anti-slapp procedure for malicious copyright torts. Yes I am of the mind that pure tort reform is not just a good idea within the USA but mandatory.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 8:12am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                      lol @ The English Pirate making up his imaginary world of how US law works.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        G Thompson (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 8:22am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                        I'm not English and if you did some due diligence before you made fallacious statements you would find absolute prima facia evidence to actually understand that.

                        Oh and we are talking about NON Grand Jury laws here.. Standard jurisprudence under common law court structures and NOT criminal law.

                         

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

          •  
            icon
            Gwiz (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

            The entire reason Megaupload got pinched was because of their US servers, thus making them obligated to follow the DMCA.

            Well that's the DOJ's theory at least. Not so sure that really flies since the government can't legally serve a company that doesn't have a US address to mail to.


            Now, you can say that they honored DMCA requests, but unless they had a functioning repeat-infringer policy, then it is no surprise at all that the DOJ went after them.

            Dunno about that one. According to this Ars Technica article MegaUpload had an "abuse tool" and complied with DMCA notices and had a registered DMCA agent.

            http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload/

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

              That's not a repeat-infringer policy. You have to have one if you're going to be in compliance with the DMCA.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                G Thompson (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:52pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                Wrong!. in fact it's so wrong that I'm amazed you can even exist after that logic failure.

                The ONLY repeat infringement system that needs to be in placed under the DMCA is one in which the court has found the infringer (ie: uploader and therefore first party respondent) has in fact infringed. Before then it's just hearsay and allegations of some sort of maybe unlawful activity by a maybe wronged party.

                Otherwise I and others could claim you are a repeat idiot without actual evidential proof that you are an idiot in the first place.. oh wait

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 4:39am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                  Uh, no.

                  A court trial is not necessary to prove infringement. Prima facie evidence is what is used in these instances.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    nasch (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 6:32am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    Prima facie evidence is what is used in these instances.

                    Who determines whether a piece of evidence is actually prima facie evidence of infringement? The accuser?

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 7:04am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                      All the info on how DMCA notices work is available on the web. Do some homework, pirate boy.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        G Thompson (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 8:15am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                        DMCA's are a notice only and NOT a legal mechanism. They are a precursor to state that legal mechanism's can take place if the notice is not complied to or that the notice is not found lacking or without merit.

                        Also they are NOT a requirement and are worthless when dealing with foreign non USA organisations no matter whether that organisation conducts business, has a presence, or otherwise within the USA.

                        In fact I myself have received some and they really make crappy toilet paper but are amusing to read and I always give the same reply as in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported] [UK]

                         

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    G Thompson (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 8:09am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    Seeing as you just copied and pasted from your previous comment to mesame matter.

                    Here!
                    ======
                    Prima facia evidence is ONLY a presumption of truth UNLESS questioned by respondent and for the civil preponderance to be actually proven other than by an ex parte hearing an onus on the plaintiff is still to have all defences covered by that first encountered/blush evidence.

                    A trial by a jury of peers is not required no, but if a court is told by Party A that party B has infringed and shows prima facia evidence and then Party B balks and brings up defences then again Infringement needs to be proven upon balance.

                    Oh and an IP address is NOT prima facia evidence of anything anywhere nor is an "under penalty of perjury" notice of infringement (the DMCA) signed by the plaintiff or there proxy.

                    So my statement of repeat infringer still stands. Even though the onus is stupidly upon the respondent to prove they are not guilty of infringement. Which might one day be a good reason for creating an anti-slapp procedure for malicious copyright torts. Yes I am of the mind that pure tort reform is not just a good idea within the USA but mandatory.
                    ==== end copied comment===

                    and maybe you need to do some homework on actual judicial and legal procedures yourself. And also a LOT of swatting on actual evidence procedures

                     

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

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

              Not so sure that really flies since the government can't legally serve a company that doesn't have a US address to mail to.

              The DOJ don't let little things like that stop them, though.

               

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

      •  
        icon
        JMT (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 1:57pm

        Re: Re: Responsibility

        "The government isn't just enforcing the law for Hollywood..."

        Their is ample evidence that Hollywood is influencing government enforcement of copyright law. It would be extremely disingenuous to claim otherwise.

        "Which means the government that wrote the law is going to enforce it."

        Their is also ample evidence that Hollywood influenced the writing of copyright law. It would be extremely disingenuous to claim otherwise.

        "Cooperating with the government on that request doesn't change the fact that the infringing material was there before the gov requested it stay."

        And? So? That doesn't make MU criminally liable, as well you know. The fact that you won't admit that MU was simply double-crossed by the DoJ, something plainly obviously to anyone with half a brain, clearly points you you having a vested interest in MU's demise. Care to share that vested interest with us?

        "Pretending that Megaupload's business model wasn't based around infringement is simply a non-starter. No one is naive about these things anymore."

        Pretending that Megaupload's users aren't taking advantage of now-common and ubiquitous technology and communication tools to route around the content industry's outdated business model is simply a non-starter. No one is naive about that anymore.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 2:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

          You've made a horrible misjudgement; you believe that since the law wasn't being enforced that it somehow went away. That isn't the case.

          And there is nothing outdated about selling something that is highly desired. Sorry.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Ed C., Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 3:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

            And there is nothing outdated about selling something that is highly desired.

            If only it were that simple. A lot of piracy is due to copyright holders refusing to sell their content in foreign markets.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 3:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

              Not trying to stretch the truth at all. I'm sorry the DMCA includes language that's inconvenient for you.

              And if your comment about content producers was actually true, then there wouldn't be any piracy in the US.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                nasch (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 4:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                Not trying to stretch the truth at all. I'm sorry the DMCA includes language that's inconvenient for you.

                Do you have the section where this repeat offender requirement exists? The DMCA is kind of a big thing to go hunting through.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 4:17pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                  http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512


                  "(i) Conditions for Eligibility.

                  (1) Accommodation of technology. The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider

                  (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and

                  (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures."

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Gwiz (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:49pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    So how does that definition, which seem to apply to monetary relief (ie: civil litigation), fit into a criminal case initiated by the DOJ?

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 4:31am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                      Uh, what?

                      You don't understand how the law works, do you?

                      Title 17, Sec 512 here doesn't discriminate between civil or criminal cases, or what types of redress can be sought. It simply states who has protection under the law and who doesn't.

                      There definitely seems to be this odd notion going around here that since the DMCA was not used aggressively in the past, that there was nothing in it that could stop continued mass infringement.

                      Nothing could be further from the truth.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        Gwiz (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 8:14am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                        You don't understand how the law works, do you?

                        I understand a bit, but I am not a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to be. To enrich my understanding is why I engage in discussions such as this.

                        Title 17, Sec 512 here doesn't discriminate between civil or criminal cases, or what types of redress can be sought. It simply states who has protection under the law and who doesn't.

                        Ok. From my understanding (which may possibly incorrect or incomplete) Title 17, Sec 512 is describing liability for "monetary relief, or,[..], for injunctive or other equitable relief". That's the stuff of civil lawsuits, not criminal. I was just curious how you made the leap to using that definition in a case of "criminal infringement" as a reason for the DOJ bringing such allegations against Mega.

                         

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Gwiz (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:55pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    So how does that definition, which seem to apply to monetary relief (ie: civil litigation), fit into a criminal case initiated by the DOJ?

                     

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Gwiz (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:08pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    So how does that definition, which seem to apply to monetary relief (ie: civil litigation), fit into a criminal case initiated by the DOJ?

                     

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

          •  
            icon
            JMT (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 4:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

            "You've made a horrible misjudgement; you believe that since the law wasn't being enforced that it somehow went away."

            You've made a horrible misjudgment, since I don't think that at all. You are incorrect in thinking that MU is criminally liable for infringing files uploaded by users. If they were, half the internet would've been shut down by now.

            "And there is nothing outdated about selling something that is highly desired."

            Never said there was. However selling something that's infinitely reproducible has never worked very well before, so it can't be expected to work very well for digital content.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 5:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

              Most products are "infinitely reproducible". Did you mean to say infinitely bootlegged or illegally reproduced en masse? I assume so.
              Which is why we have law enforcement. Have a powerful day.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                nasch (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 6:37am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                Most products are "infinitely reproducible". Did you mean to say infinitely bootlegged or illegally reproduced en masse?

                I think he assumed you would understand it means "infinitely reproducible at essentially zero marginal cost". That's kind of a mouthful so it's nice to abbreviate sometimes.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 7:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                  Marginal cost is but one thing used in economics re: business models, fool.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    nasch (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 8:02am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                    Marginal cost is but one thing used in economics re: business models, fool.

                    Oh I thought you might be interested in a reasonable discussion. My mistake.

                     

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 6:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                No, they are not, as there needs to be an infinite supply of material to make the product. Since the supply of wood is finite, it is not, in point of fact, 'infinitely reproducible.' Please be sure you understand what you are discussing.

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 6:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                No, they are not, as there needs to be an infinite supply of material to make the product. Since the supply of wood is finite, a wooden chair is not, in point of fact, 'infinitely reproducible.' Please be sure you understand what you are discussing.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                JMT (profile), Jan 6th, 2013 @ 11:25am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility

                "Most products are "infinitely reproducible"."

                Completely false. Come back when you have a clue.

                 

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

      •  
        identicon
        Eponymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Um, no, It's your claims that are ridiculous...

        This would be as if a deputy of the DEA informs a property owner that a tenant of theirs has a methlab operating in one of their apartments, but to not inform the suspect tenant, or any other tenants, of this matter, not to take action to remove the methlab from property to only latter prosecute the property owner as a drug offender for allowing a methlab to remain on in their building...

        Can you say entrapment?

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    anonymouse, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:09am

    Seriously!!!

    Sadly this proves beyond doubt that the DOJ cannot be trusted, and if that is allowed to sit then many many other cases could be at risk, the DOJ will never let this happen, they will sweep this under the carpet and not allow it to be brought up again somehow. Possibly by dropping the case if Kim agrees to a secret settlement.

    Sadly if i was in his place i would do this but i would be making many demands , like having a certain politician publicly apologies for the case. And that Hollywood be punished somehow, and punished in a way that is open and everyone can see how serious the punishment is.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:25am

    The DOJ..

    is controlled by the content companies; they are just doing what they are told to do by the studios. Legality has never been an obstacle to the DOJ; who can possibly rein them in? Congress doesn't dare. And just look at the number of attorneys formerly working for the content industry who were "hired" by the DOJ in the last few years. How many of them are still being paid under the counter by their former employers? Or do they try to get around the law by having members of their families "employed" by the content industry? when agencies get as big as the DOJ, it is inevitable that they will become corrupt to some degree, just as Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS are corrupt.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:26am

      Re: The DOJ..

      How many of them are still being paid under the counter by their former employers? Or do they try to get around the law by having members of their families "employed" by the content industry?

      I would guess they have jobs waiting for them when they get back to the private sector.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:25am

    The DOJ..

    is controlled by the content companies; they are just doing what they are told to do by the studios. Legality has never been an obstacle to the DOJ; who can possibly rein them in? Congress doesn't dare. And just look at the number of attorneys formerly working for the content industry who were "hired" by the DOJ in the last few years. How many of them are still being paid under the counter by their former employers? Or do they try to get around the law by having members of their families "employed" by the content industry? when agencies get as big as the DOJ, it is inevitable that they will become corrupt to some degree, just as Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS are corrupt.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:27am

    No average joe or OOTB to comment, what a surprise.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:27am

    The more you look atty this situation, the more it seems that crony capitalism had taken over the government.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:07am

      Re:

      Claiming my comment.

      So I'll add to my reasoning here.

      Since 1976, the government has been controlled by special interests. In regards to copyright, it's evident that they've used copyright to destroy their competition. The first segment was other businesses until it was consolidated in the 80s. Next came control of artists, directors, and what I'll deem "The creative class". By creating "work for hire" laws that favored businesses over people, the creative class was forced to work for Pennies on the dollar. And how could you get a message out that didn't support the status quo? Amateur radio is hampered by FTC regulations that favor the big boys. The same with broadband internet with the monopoly of AT&T and Verizon.

      So in essence, the government has revolved around monopolies for the past four decades. But why?

      Well, I keep harping about what the must powerful word in the English language is: incentive.

      The MPAA has a strong incentive to use the government to maintain its monopoly and greatly bend the rules. Pirate sites make little money from maintaining archives of videos, but the less competition for the studios means more profits for them in their monopolized industries. If there were no internet, Universal would have control of its products and where it can make money through the same tactics of windowing, regionalization, and strong enforcement of the law that it bought and paid for with Hollywood subsidies.

      This incentive has crippled our justice system the same way it has crippled our public domain. I don't think the result is just more regulation here. The entire system is rotten. Why do we need a system that allows for inequality of content sharing to be the norm?

      At least to me, we've given corporate interests a strong incentive to make the public mere vessels for "stuff" rather than helpful creators of more content.

      That is a damn travesty of what our Founding Fathers believed in allowing copyright monopolies for a limited time.

       

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    Shadow Dragon (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:28am

    Don't forget your required OOTB post

    What a bunch pirates.Horray for copyright.Mike is a tool. Blah blah blah

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:38am

    But it's the law

    This should highlight how broken the system really is.

    Mega is/was definitely a haven for piracy, and yes that is clear to anyone who used the site.

    But Mega was abiding by the law. The law grants protection for these services from the actions of their users and that's just how it is.

    So all of the whining shills that wish to trumpet the law when it comes to piracy need to stand down and accept that services that can be used for piracy are PROTECTED by the LAW from the illegal actions of their users.

    Otherwise gun manufacturers and telephone companies need to all be shut down immediately.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:04am

      Re: But it's the law

      "Mega is/was definitely a haven for piracy, and yes that is clear to anyone who used the site."

      As is RapidShare, and any other locker site.
      It's up to the copyright holders to report problems (which RS and, until its shutdown, MU, complied with.) to the lockers.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      maclypse (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:58am

      Re: But it's the law

      The key thing to remember here is that going after solitary stealthy individuals is HARD, and going after the poor bastards who run very visible companies or websites is EASY.

      Neither government nor big business wants to chase after hundreds of millions of actual criminals (and I use the word in the loosest sense), when they can simply go after the 100 big service providers.

      The law may in most countries still hold the individual responsible, and the service provider innocent, but that's merely semantics... Megaupload, Piratebay, SurfTheChannel -pick a country and it's the same all over- screw the law; go after the providers for "conspiracy!"

      Mark my words, it's just a matter of time before the letter of the law says a provider is directly responsible for all of the actions of the users, and even search engines will be criminally responsible for automatically finding and indexing illegal content. It's not going to help anyone, or stop "piracy", but it is going to happen none the less.

      They really do have their heads that far up their bums. It's inevitable.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: But it's the law

        pick a country and it's the same all over- screw the law; go after the providers for "conspiracy!"

        Yep, regular copyright law vs. file-sharing copyright law.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 6:56am

    The whole of this Presidential Administration is criminal in it's actions and inaction.
    Fast and Furious.
    Gun Runner.
    Megaupload.
    Benghazi.
    NDAA.
    Bureaucratic rules with the force of law.
    Laws that are not Constitutional.
    Obama Care.
    We live under a tyrannical government.
    The people get it that's why they are buying so many guns.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:02am

      Re:

      The whole of this Republican Congress is criminal in it's actions and inaction.
      The Fiscal Cliff
      9/11
      Iraq War
      Hurricane Katrina
      Enron
      the Recession
      Megaupload
      Copyright Laws that are not Constitutional.
      Bureaucratic rules with the force of law.
      We live under a tyrannical government.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Trailbarge, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:48am

        Re: Re:

        No that is stupid beyond the pale.
        Blaming the Republicans for all that? Blaming ANYBODY for a hurricane?

        By the by.... the head of the Justice Department is Atty General Eric Holder, appointed by and is part of the Obama administration.

        Kindly get an education and wait until you have something worth saying before fanning flames with this..... stuff.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Chris Goetschius, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Re:

        More to add:
        Sandy Relief
        Violence Against Women Act

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:16am

      Re:

      Fast and Furious did NOTHING to take away guns in Mexico and was political theater to make Holder look bad.

      Gun Runner was Bush's idea first.

      Megaupload was all Hollywood which controls both parties.

      Benghazi was all conservatives who took away diplomatic funding for more guns in the military.

      Obamacare is supposed to help all Americans get healthcare. You must hate people getting preventative care when the US is 37th in healthcare among developed nations. I guess humanity is not one thing taught in our schools anymore.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 9:27am

        Re: Re:

        Do we really need to go down the Obamacare rabbit hole... FFS You want it to have your kids fine, he cant stand it (along with alot of other shit apparently)...

        Im sick of both of you for turning every little thing into the R Vs D / Mines bigger than yours...

        You both support the Big G party, its just a matter of which flavor you prefer...

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 11:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I really don't. I just hate how people get this notion that one party is somehow above reproach. Both are bad but the worst Congress is the one that just left office.

          Personally, I would like a better proportional government. But that requires a national movement.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 1:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Because wasting time on assigning blame keeps there from being any change. It keeps the public fighting over who has the better side of the shit sandwich.
            NEWS FLASH THEY ARE FEEDING US A SHIT SANDWICH.
            I'd like to hope someday people might care more about the fucking sandwich they are shoving in our mouths rather than bickering about which side we should blame for it.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 1:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That's the wrong message to take from my words here.

              We need a grassroots movement to change our government. We have a number of issues that need to be tackled:

              Proportional representation
              Electoral college reform
              Incentives for business
              Incentives for people to work
              Women's rights
              Educational reform

              That reform is something that can be done, at least partially, with one party in charge. It was done in 1932.

              Right now, the fact is that both parties are pretty bad, playing a game of austerity that is going to hurt the country.

              I predict that when Social Security is finally cut, you will have a massive uprising similar to Hoovervilles under FDR.

              Now let's recognize that corporate are sitting on trillions of dollars while the deficit IS trillions. The main difference from FDR's more liberal views was the fact that since the 1940s, we've destroyed our left movement that pushed FDRto some stresses that saved capitalism.

              Obama is merely responding to where his money comes from and that is the richest among us. As it stands, both parties are indeed bad. But atty least onepparty will take a left-center position because it is made up of more progressive minded people.

               

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:05am

      Re:

      The whole of every administration has been criminal for decades.

       

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:10am

    Pirate Mike sides with pirates! It's the story of the century!

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:27am

      Re:

      Pirate Mike sides with pirates! It's the story of the century!

      Umm. Yeah. Ok. Whatever dude.

      You are obviously of the "either you are with us or you are against us" line of thinking while the rest of us can intelligently discern that pointing out the Government's obvious missteps, miscarriages of justice and borderline abuses of power in this case have nothing whatsoever to do with which side of the copyright debate you may be on.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:25am

      Re:

      If you call pointing out the flaws in the prosecution and seizure of a company/website as siding with pirates, then yeah, I guess Mike is siding with them.

      Of course the article isn't at all about siding with pirates but about how the prosecution of Megaupload is being done over files that they were specifically asked to not delete by the government because they were needed as evidence for other prosecutions.

      But of course you obviously missed all that in your rush to write about how Mike is siding with pirates. I'm sure all you saw was the word "Megaupload" in the headline and saw that the article was written by Mike and said to yourself, "Megaupload + Mike Masnick = Mike loves piracy". Which couldn't be further from the truth, as Mike has countless times pointed out, in the comments and in articles, that copyright infringement is against the law and he does not condone it in any way, shape or form. BUT he does understand why it happens to a degree and he also realizes that current methods of enforcement are failing and that giving people what they want would do wonders to decrease (but not stop) piracy/copyright infringement.

      But why let a thing like that get in the way of your soon to be reported post, am I right?

      Seriously though, you guys are hilarious. You'd rather seize companies and their assets and close down websites through any means necessary (including breaking the pretty much all the laws revolving around due process) than actually giving people what they want which would do more to lower piracy than anything else. You and your kind are worse than the pirates. They might break one law, which doesn't deserve much respect. You'll break tens, hundreds, thousands just to go after them. And much more significant laws at that. The ends DO NOT justify the means.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:19am

    Memo: How to troll the freetards and win the war.

    - Ad Hominen: If you can't attack the reasoning, attack the person doing it, look at how out_of_his_mind has been doing it lately.

    - FUD: FUD everything you can. e.g. out_of_his_mind, Joe, Darryl are good examples to follow.

    - Be disruptive go on tangents and don't try to hard to be logic.

    - Preach our points as they were written in stone, never doubt the truthfulness of the word of the RIAA or MPAA are spin doctors are working hard to come up with credible although entirely bogus claims to be made.

    - If anyone asks why say the law said so, never mind that the law was passed by less than honest means under very shady circumstances without input from opponents, heck we didn't even give them a chance to see it. Never mind that appeal to authority is a well known fallacy.

    - Defend the DOJ pansies, they are dumb but we need to make due with what we got, and they need help or they will be slaughtered in the arena of public opinion.

    Fallow it and you be a winner!
    Catching! Winning!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 7:36am

    'it's looking more and more like the DOJ cut corners so badly that it's entire case may be at risk'

    how could it's case not be at risk? having been asked to help the government, agreeing to do so and having written evidence of agreeing to do so, how could anyone then be deemed as committing criminal activities? this whole escapade was a setup, orchestrated by the USA entertainment industries, authorised by a top government official and executed by the boss of a law enforcement agency as a personal favour to the industries. when this total mess is all sorted out, those responsible, whoever they may be and regardless of the positions they may hold, need to be exposed for what they are, absolute liars who cannot be trusted in any position, let alone one of national responsibility. there also needs to be serious amounts of compensation paid to all who were denied access to their files and a real overhaul and update of the copyright, sharing and patent laws!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Dave Nelson, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:08am

    Ain't Gonna Happen!

    You want REAL reform? You want to end the Hollywood mess? Then three things need to happen. First, eliminate the grossly excessive cost of campaigning. In spite of the campaign manager's opinions, traveling around the country is not required. We have superb communications now, so all of this could be done from the Internet. Commercial TV and radio isn't necessary to get the message out. Provide each registered candidate with a fixed, equal amount of money.

    Second, make PACs, of any sort, and lobbying illegal. No one knows where the money comes from, large corporations, foreign governments, criminal organizations, Hollywood, who knows? I do know we don't need that cash running around Washington, or the state governments buying votes and influencing legislation and judicial decisions.

    Third limit all donations to the state or national political parties, with a limit of $50 per year per person, tracked by the person's ID, and eliminate private donations to the individual candidates.

    I know, it won't happen. Too much money already floating around to allow it. It sure would be nice, though.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:58am

    "In fact, the government specifically appears to have instructed Carpathia to tell Megaupload (1) to retain the files in question and (2) that Megaupload was not the subject of the investigation:"

    The DOJ should have told them that they were being investigated? They should have told them to delete the eveidence that was going to be used against them?

    Seriously?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 9:16am

      Re:

      "The DOJ should have told them that they were being investigated? They should have told them to delete the eveidence that was going to be used against them?

      Seriously?"

      You're looking at it wrong. Megaupload was going to delete the files as soon as they were made aware they were there. They were TOLD to NOT delete the files, as they were needed as evidence in an investigation. Then the DOJ turns around and investigates Megaupload for NOT deleting the files THEY told them not to delete.

      It's easy to see how you might have missed that.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      maclypse (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 9:21am

      Re:

      Well, what's the alternative?

      Option 1: Telling them
      1) Send the DMCA takedown notice to remove illegal content.
      2) Megaupload complies.
      3 There's no case.

      Option 2: Not telling them
      1) Flat out lie to Megaupload: Ask them to assist in a criminal investigation by NOT removing illegal content.
      2) Flat out lie to the courts: Get a warrant on the accusation of hosting the illegal content you asked them NOT to delete.
      3) ...
      4) Profit!

      There's words for option 2. "Legal" is not among them.

      There was an option 3: investigate Megaupload without breaking the law, fabricating evidence and lying to the courts. That's the issue.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 1:31am

        Re: Re:

        Well they did number 1.
        They did number 2.
        You missed option 1.5, which was demand more access to remove files and get it on a silver platter and decide it still wasn't enough even after being caught abusing the special access.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      EveryonesDragon, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 11:38am

      Re:

      Actually, if they (MU) are being investigated, and the government serves them with paperwork, they are REQUIRED to say that MU is the subject of the investigation. Telling them to retain these files for an investigation and NOT telling MU that they (again, MU) are the subject of that investigation and then using that retention as justification for a lawsuit constitutes entrapment, the forced commission of a criminal action. The US government cannot compel you to commit a criminal act and then charge you with the commission of that action.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 12:38pm

      Re:

      MU only becomes liable for the files once they know they are infringing. As the youtube/viacom case showed just knowing that somewhere on your system a 3rd party probably uploaded some infringing content is not enough to make you liable. MU had to be aware that specific files were infringing and not remove them after they knew this.

      So the government tells them the files are infringing, so now MU knows about it. Then the government tells them to keep them unaltered and allow people to continue to access them.

      The government then turns around and says look, they have infringing files that they know about and they have not taken then down or blocked access. Of course they forget to mention that MU knows they are infringing because the doj told them about them and asked them to keep them.

      Do you not see how sneaky and illegal what the doj did is?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 9:26am

    Will this farce ever end?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 9:44am

    This is what happens when businesses are allowed to make up and enforce their own rules to protect a dying business model, not much of a government if it can't govern, IIRC it was supposed to be for the people...not against

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 10:36am

    who is the criminal and who is the victim...

    It is clear now who are the criminals and who are the innocent victims... seems like the US DOJ has donned black and gone to the dark side (MIAA RIAA)... unbelievable that they could turn Kim Dotcom into the hero... Go Hollywood!! your hole is getting deeper... I too mourn the day that the music died when artists sold out so I mine the digital looking for artists that have not.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 12:27pm

    Yes, a part of the government should go ballistic

    I fully expect the government to go ballistic
    Yes, I fully expect a part of the government to go ballistic over this. Hopefully it will be the part called the Judiciary; the so-called Department of Justice may as well.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 8:16pm

    In Dystopian America the evidence of the crime is complying with the law.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 11:01pm

      Re:

      Which is why if any non US company from now on gets a request by the US DoJ or FBI etc to hold onto 'evidence' and not tell anyone that an investigation is ongoing they should absolutely and forthwith delete any and all 'evidence'. Note that the DOJ have no jurisdiction to compel a non US entity to retain that evidence oterthan for moral/ethical/goodwill reasons. Also the company should instantly tell the clients in question that an investigation is being carried out since again no compulsion to not tell.

      This serves two purposes. One the US Authority then cannot entrap the non US company and two shows the US Authority that they can basically fuck off and mind there own business from now on. Or better yet get a valid Jurisdictional order compelling what they want under comity.

      The chilling effect of what the DoJ has done is going to ripple through the ITC industry, and not for the benefit of the USA.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    peter, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 1:18am

    Consequences

    Can anyone imagine the reaction of any company approached by the government to help with their investigation. The only possible response now is "we will do exactly what is necessary, and only what is necessary, to keep within the law. If by doing that it impedes or even destroys your investigation, tough."

     

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 4th, 2013 @ 1:34am

    And the most awesome part of all...
    As we rushed to the fiscal cliff, they managed to make sure Holllywood got more cash.
    The country is going to hell in a handbasket, we can't afford basic services... but what the hell give Hollywood handouts.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Dave Nelson, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 6:05am

    Review, Please.

    Let's get some real lawyers in this discussion to give us their opinion. Nearly everything the Gummint is doing seems illegal to me, either here or in New Zeeland. I'm not sure I understand why or how the US DOJ is getting away with this crap. Is the rest of our intrepid Government just a bunch of jellyfish with no backbone to stop them, or to stand up to Hollyweird? What ever happened to the Constitution??

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 4th, 2013 @ 6:30am

      Re: Review, Please.

      Uh let's not. Or better said let's as long as it's not AJ. Which sadly to say, the AC above you certainly talks like the guy and writes in a similar style.

      But nah, can't be AJ. He'd never not sign in. /s

       

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


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