New Zealand High Court Orders Kiwi Police & FBI To Return Seized Hard Drives To Kim Dotcom
from the another-failure dept
The investigation and arrest of Kim Dotcom continues to show itself to be an operation that was poorly thought out, where clear liberties were taken by law enforcement who so believed the “Dr. Evil” image that the MPAA set up for them that actually following official procedures seemed of little importance. They really seemed to think that they could do anything and Dotcom would cave. But, as he’s challenged a variety of points, and won most of the battles, the carelessness and sloppiness of the whole production keeps getting highlighted over and over again. The latest example: a court has ordered New Zealand police to give Dotcom back “all digital material taken illegally” during the raid, and also “to return anything irrelevant to their investigation” — and they need to do all of this at their own cost. And, yes, this includes the cloned hard drives that were already sent to the FBI in the US. The court also said that further copies of the cloned hard drives must be destroyed.
The judgement, made by chief High Court justice Helen Winkelmann today, says the seizure of devices without sorting them first was unlawful, and that the police have no right to keep irrelevant material.
[….] “The warrants could not authorise the permanent seizure of hard drives and digital materials against the possibility that they might contain relevant material, with no obligation to check them for relevance,” Winkelmann wrote. “They could not authorise the shipping offshore of those hard drives with no check to see if they contained relevant material. Nor could they authorise keeping the plaintiffs out of their own information, including information irrelevant to the offences.”
It will be interesting to see how the FBI reacts. Winkelmann told NZ law enforcement that it must inform the FBI of the order. I expect that the FBI will proceed to completely ignore the order, but I imagine that that, too, may complicate the extradition case.
Just a suggestion for the US DOJ and New Zealand Law Enforcement: next time, before rushing off when Chris Dodd and his buddies point their finger at someone and claim they’re “evil,” perhaps you should actually follow the law, rather than pretending you’re a bunch of cowboys setting up a Hollywood-style raid to make Dodd happy.
Filed Under: evidence, extradition, fbi, helen winkelmann, illegal seizures, kim dotcom, new zealand high court, police
Companies: megaupload
Comments on “New Zealand High Court Orders Kiwi Police & FBI To Return Seized Hard Drives To Kim Dotcom”
Dayyyyyyyyymn...
Is anyone else thinking the case against Dotcom might be dead by this point?
Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
There never was a cast against dotcom. Hollywood was just flexing its muscle to frighten the nerds.
Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
By “nerds”, I assume you mean “companies making perfectly legal online services who might now not create more useful legal services because they don’t want to face jail if Hollywood doesn’t like them”. Sadly, you could be right.
Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
Who are the members of this cast that does not like dotcom and are they making a movie?
Re: Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
They have a big problem. Whom are they going to get to play (hard swallow) the lead?
Re: Re: Re:2 Dayyyyyyyyymn...
John Goodman, naturally.
Re: Re: Dayyyyyyyyymn...
Hollywood was just flexing its muscle on the day right after SOPA died. It was a cheap revenge move borne in a hissy fit of passion.
Awesome, this means that Dotcom’s defense team actually have access to the evidence that supposedly convicts him if and when this ever reaches trial. Unfortunately, this won’t stop the usual suspects coming in here and whining that Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up without due process, but it means that he should have at least some access to justice if it comes to court. Assuming the FBI complies with the request, of course. They haven’t exactly shown a willingness to follow the law themselves so far.
Re: Re:
These are just the hard drives taken from his home.
Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom: These are not the drives you are looking for. /Jedi
Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm must have misunderstood then, sorry. Still a step in the right direction, though.
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks. Mini-Me failed to make that clear.
i wonder just how much notice the USA DoJ and the USA FBI are going to take of a NZ court? at a guess, i would say ‘not a lot’! however, put the shoe on the other foot and ask how much notice the USA DoJ and the USA FBI would expect a NZ citizen or law enforcement agency (particularly one that had acted in such a disgraceful manner) to take of a USA court order?
Re: Re:
I doubt they are going to take much notice of the order (and even if they pretend to comply, I doubt they’re actually going to destroy all copies like they’ve been ordered to), and then they wonder why the US government is losing respect from more and more people – even among her own citizens – by the day.
I love how, before this debacle, few knew who Kim Dotcom was and the US DOJ and Hollywood have turned him into an anti-Hollywood folk hero. In the court of world opinion, there is one clear winner here and it is not Hollywood but Dotcom.
Well done, to all involved in the case.
Re: Re:
What really amazes me about all this is that they did seem to screw thing up bad enough to make Kim Dotcom come out looking like the good guy. I’m not even sure how they did it. Kim Dotcom is not exactly a likable character, and yet I still find myself cheering for him.
Re: Re: Re:
Not only that, but the are making DotCom look innocent! When this whole thing started, I assumed that he was probably guilty, but that the government’s actions were still unconscionable (I’m a believer in the concept of justice.)
As this has gone on, I have changed my opinion. Since even with the government cheating they still couldn’t come up with a case, I think the odds are that the case was complete BS from the start.
Re: Re:
now with TechDirt almost 15 people know who Dotcom is !!!!..
Re: Re: Re:
“HERPA DERPA TECHDIRT DOESN’T MATTER!! That’s why me and about five other regulars spend all of our time spreading pro-industry propaganda there!”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn, that’s as insightful as it is hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:
You are apparently unfamiliar with this thing called Twitter.
DotCom has roughly 300,000 followers.
Re: Re: Re:
Now we almost know who you are. darryl, the Australian who thinks fair use is evil and the rights of solar panels trumps that of human beings. Which almost trump the rights of IP.
Its so outlandish the lengths our government has sunk to all in an attempt to placate the **AA cartels.
Nearly every case brought to appease them before this turned into a cluster fook and made the US look stupid and trying to avoid the law.
Anyone wonder if Holder got the AP records to just take the focus off of this?
This extrajudicial nonsense needs to come to an end. We can’t just go around propping up our intellectually-fabricated rights in order to unilaterally bring charges against foreign citizens, at the behest of a schill installed by the **AA.
If I remember rightly, this will be the second time that the US has been ordered to return those hard drives. I believe the first judge on the case also ordered the FBI to return the drives back to New Zealand as they were never supposed to leave the country. The FBI ignored the order.
I believe I also read that Kim wanted the drives, not only for defense purposes but because it contained video from his security cameras where he claimed he could prove unwarranted force in his arrest.
Re: Re:
Not quite: the NZ team appealed that decision, IIRC, so that the return was delayed.
Who knows, maybe they pulled a Youngblood and claimed that the HDD clones were “accidentally erased” in the US.
Re: Video from security cameras
When the hard drives are returned I expect this footage will have been “accidentally deleted”. (And overwritten a half dozen times just to be sure.)
Re: Re: Video from security cameras
Half a dozen terabytes of eagles.
Re: Re: Re: Video from security cameras
Motherfucking Eagles. FTFY
Re: Re:
This was before it came out the warrants were illegal and the fact that NZ violated their own laws and spied on him at the behest of the US.
I think the video is the least of their worries nowdays.
It would be nice if NZ actually decided to stand up to the US to try and salvage their reputation.
Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn’t be the first time if they did.
Then again, they’re still feeling the last time (admitedly, only due to stupid economic/trade policy elements.)
Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
All you’re saying is it’s tough to convict a clever and resolute criminal, especially one now overseas. Remember, the US only got John Dillinger, definitely behind multiple murders, on tax evasion.
But due process and effective procedures are evolving. The money interests alone ensure that Dotcom’s thieving will be ended. I hold that there is also strong public interest in ending this GRIFTING. He’s stealing potential income from copyrighted works away from those who created the works.
NONE of the actions of police whether right or wrong, affect the fact that Dotcom has gotten millions by effectively selling what he didn’t create. You kids have taken up novel notions that criminals who don’t have a US address, or who are difficult to get the evidence on in new areas, who intentionally skirt the law — in this specific case who willfully remain ignorant of what they’re actually selling — are entirely innocent. You take up the cause of this THIEF because you’re little pirates who’ve an interest in getting the hosted infringed content for free. You cannot make a moral case for Dotcom’s busines, only go to the extremes of law and hold that he can skate.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly “legal” symbiotic piracy.
00:51:10[a-602-1]
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Hey, got a problem with how the case is handled? Go complain to your buddies of the copyright industry.
They are the ones pulling the strings. They are the ones who botched the whole operation.
They could’ve nailed Kim Dotcom for so many things, from tax evasion, to cracking to insider trading to whatever other criminal shit he was involved in.
Instead, they chose copyright infringement. And then botched the whole deal.
Idiots.
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
That sound horribly like witch hunting, where ‘due process’ is simply the means of legalizing the burning of the person, and the confiscation of their property.
(Note the Spanish inquisition got to keep the property of witches and heretics.)
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
It is witch hunting. ootb just has a habit of changing language occasionally to make it look like he has a realistic point. Here, for example, he knows that if he simply says “lock him up, he’s guilty”, people will remind him that in a democratic society laws need to be backed up by due process. So, he mentions due process in his comment, blissfully unaware that this means that he may not get the verdict he’s expecting or that by requesting due process he is in fact condemning the actions taken thus far. He also forgets that “lack of prior restraint” and “presumption of innocence before proven guilty” are part of the requirements for having due process.
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
“They could’ve nailed Kim Dotcom for so many things, from tax evasion, to cracking to insider trading to whatever other criminal shit he was involved in.”
What makes you think he was involved in anything like that? Why are you so sure they would’ve “nailed” him?
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Seriously?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
He’s been involved in all sorts of financial crimes.
Re: Re: Re:2 Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
“He’s been involved in all sorts of financial crimes.”
Prove it, boy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
And served his time, yet people still want to punish him for past acts over and over.
Should we hold your entire life history against you and use that to justify breaking the law to make sure you get what you deserve?
Re: Re: Re:2 Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
“He’s been involved in all sorts of financial crimes.”
The key words being “has been”, and you can replace “all sorts of” with “two minor”. Bernie Madoff he was not.
But you clearly implied he’s currently or recently committed tax evasion, cracking, insider trading and “other criminal shit”. Care to back up these big claims?
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Which Ootb is this. I think it is the first time I see the comment spelled even remotely well and it is definitely one of the only times, there is some decent food on the bone between the ad hominems and red herrings. You sound like Average_joe.
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
It’s possible that there’s only one obsessive sad loser out there repeating the same lies under different alts. But, if Mike were to access the public information given to him to confirm this, they’d just whine again about something or other…
I suspect this is a genuine ootb post, given that it contains most of the usual false claims and the idiotic signature attempt, but who knows.
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
But, if Mike were to access the public information given to him to confirm this, they’d just whine again about something or other…
He does that all of the time.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
“Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.”
Correction: Dotcom is innocent until proven guilty and if, following due process, he is proven guilty then he should be locked up.
I know that you can’t stand that people support due process, and you think he should be locked up for vbeing an obnoxious dick who’s offended some people (glass houses there, dude), but due process should be followed. That’s it. Sorry if that means that people like you have to do things like provide evidence and allow a defense, but that’s the world you live in. Totalitarian regimes that lock people up without trial or due process are available, should you wish to move to one.
Stop lying about everything else in this case and, once again, you find you agree with what’s actually being said. Stop addressing your fantasies and agree with reality. Yes, even if that means agreeing with Mike.
“NONE of the actions of police whether right or wrong, affect the fact that Dotcom has gotten millions by effectively selling what he didn’t create”
Despite your fantasies, none of that has been proven in a court of law. Opinions of an anonymous tosser on the internet are not legally binding.
“You kids have taken up novel notions that criminals who don’t have a US address”
No, us adults (there’s only one child here, kid) have taken the novel notion that companies who are not located in the US should not be subjected to US law, even if their websites happen be accessed from there. If you don’t agree, are you OK with every US-based website being held accountable under Saudi law by the same criteria? If not, you’re a hypocritical asshole.
“You take up the cause of this THIEF because you’re little pirates who’ve an interest in getting the hosted infringed content for free.”
Stop lying. no matter how much you repeat this, you’re not going to make it true.
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
NONE of the actions of police whether right or wrong, affect the fact that Dotcom has gotten millions by effectively selling what he didn’t create
As you say – none of that has been proved in court – however it HAS been proved in court that aa number of the major record companies (in Canada I believe) have done exactly that – and yet they are amongst those baying for his blood.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
You’re right he didn’t create the space on his hard drives that he rented out, he just legally acquired it.
Ohh you mean the infringing videos that USERS uploaded and shared. yeah maybe he did profit from that a little but I contest that he didn’t deprive anyone of income. This is based on a single fact:
THE VIDEOS WERE NOT FOR RENT ANYWHERE ELSE!
I would have an entirely different opinion of Mr Dotcom if there were legitimate streaming sites but they simply don’t exist.
How can he possibly be taking income from those who refuse to sell their products?
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Point: MAFIAA asked Megaupload to retain files it claimed were infringing on it’s servers to protect evidence against another file sharer it was after, when Megaupload complied it sent the DOJ after Megaupload.
Point: “But due process and effective procedures are evolving”.
Due Process is the application of the law as written and interpreted in the Judicial Review process. Not some evolving desire of non Judicial or non legislative entities.
Point: Dotcom and Megaupload made their money providing a legal service to it’s customers, including many various artists who were making money using Megaupload as their distribution network. Megaupload was fully complaint via the provisions of the DMCA.
Point: “You take up the cause of this THIEF because you’re little pirates who’ve an interest in getting the hosted infringed content for free”.
Ad Hominem Much?
Point: “You cannot make a moral case for Dotcom’s busines, only go to the extremes of law and hold that he can skate”.
“All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer”.
Sir William Blackstone 1765
“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”.
Benjamin Franklin 1785
As we have seen by recent events by the government of the United States violations of the law and the Constitution are actions taken by it on what seems to be a daily basis.
A full and rigorous adversarial due process is the right of every person that the United States Government seeks to bring criminal charges against.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Cathy,
at least the IRS agents followed due process to get the conviction, unlike the FBI in this case.
This is why the FBI are losing this case.
We can’t do away with due process just because authoritarians like you decide that someone is guilty because they have decided this behind closed doors.
Slander and lie all you like, but you’ll never win anyone over by insulting them and ignoring the truth.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
You have an interesting view of due process, seeing as how you have already concluded that Kim Dotcom is guilty without ever seeing any evidence or having a trial–you know, all those things that are part of ‘due process’.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Gotta hand it you, me. As usual, driving the comments. — Sure, they’re simple mindless contradictions just like yapping ankle-biters, but it’s all ya can expect here. Mere sight of your valuable out_of_the_blue screen name (having the unique distinction of being so much false use that the fanboys have to guess which is real), sets ’em off.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike’s “new business model” (file hosts like Megaupload) is to grift on income streams that should go to content creators — and then call the creators greedy!
01:57:41[b-250-5]
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
As usual, driving the comments.
Now I am simply laughing my ass off at your puffed-up ego, Blue. That you confuse “driving the comments” with people correcting, disputing & refuting your asinine comments is so typical for you.
Sure, they’re simple mindless contradictions just like yapping ankle-biters…
Once again, funny stuff there Blue. I would think you would realize by now that the counter-arguments to your silly statements are not for your benefit anymore, they are for everyone else reading this blog. We all know your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused with any facts.
I would guess that most, like me, have also realized that you don’t really have the balls to back up your assertions in a healthy debate. You just want to spout crap like it’s the gospel truth and obtusely ignore or write-off any counter-arguments as “ankle-biters” so you think you have won the debate. It’s sad really.
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Talking to yourself, now? Thanks for handing the world more proof that you are severely mentally disturbed.
I’d have posted “U mad, bro?” but then I realised it was a redundant query. You’re nuttier than a fruitcake!
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Please don’t insult mentally ill people. They have more sense than to come here and make facetious arguments that are easily refuted.
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Sure, they’re simple mindless contradictions just like yapping ankle-biters, but it’s all ya can expect here.
That is one of the funniest lines yet considering how ootb’s comments are usually “simple mindless contradictions” of the articles.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
OotB apparently doesn’t believe in the American rule of “innocent until proven guilty”.
So, when did you stop beating your mother, Blue?
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Good story bro… Tell it again.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
But due process and effective procedures are evolving.
You wish! (and what makes you a total ass, BTW).
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
you are such a wanker. Nothing proven and nothing done right. You’re saying Dot Com is a criminal, well how about the Fucking DOJ! and FBI! They broke the laws too, do you see anyone arresting them?
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Remember, the US only got John Dillinger, definitely behind multiple murders, on tax evasion.
The hell they did. They got Dillinger with three rounds of .38 behind the Biograph Theater.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Quote:
He’s stealing potential income from copyrighted works away from those who created the works.
NONE of the actions of police whether right or wrong, affect the fact that Dotcom has gotten millions by effectively selling what he didn’t create.
And what has the MPAA or RIAA created? They don’t create anything themselves, but instead take millions from the artists who do the actual creation. By your own argument everyone in those organizations should be locked up after the exact same due process.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
and yet you still lend people books
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
But due process and effective procedures are evolving.
The way due process is “evolving” in this case makes it damn scary to live under the jurisdiction of the USDOJ, or the NZ authorities for that matter.
Re: Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
The NZ authorities are actually pretty good for the most part. You only get thiskevel of nonsense when the US sticks it’s oar in.
Not that NZ doesn’t have enough of it’s own issues, of course, and one could be forgiven for thinking the current government to be bought and payed for UScorporate puppets (possible, but more likely they’re just the same brand of idiot.)
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Aren’t these raving posts by OOTB getting dangerous close to libellous? Watch your back, OOTB.
Once again Out_of_the_blue convicts someone even before any evidence is heard in a court or proper law processes followed. Same old shill moves. knock it off please.
Seems like the trail is derailing at every junction.
i’m suprised if the hard drives will actually work and not destroyed and cut up to get at those illegal bits.
How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly “legal” symbiotic piracy.
) Content doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, someone has to labor to create it. Real $100M movies, unlike the one Mike casually made up for his false example, require thousands of hours of actual physical labor, not least in coordinating the labors of perhaps hundreds. That’s up-front money which must be recovered before profit begins, with carrying costs piling up all the time.
) Then Uploader gets hands on the distribution media, alone decides that the work-product of hundreds of people should be “shared”; he ignores printed and in-content visual statements that it’s a copyrighted work, intentionally strips off measures meant to prevent copying, and uploads it to:
) File Host, which must pretend utter ignorance of content even while using it to attract eyeballs to third-party advertisements on-site. This of course is the key illegality because the least knowledge that data is actually infringed content while distributing it even with indirect income from advertising is commercial infringement, which even Mike and his fanboys acknowledge is criminal.
) So Links Sites (which also get money from advertising from the draw of infringed content) are the cut-out between knowledge of data on the drives and knowledge that it’s infringing. Note that Megaupload did not index its own files. That’s to avoid the key connection. — And of course it’s a lie. Had anyone at Megaupload glanced into almost any file hosted, they’d have knowledge of infringed content. — At this point Mike and fanboys yell: “But no one can possibly know!” — No, kids, so strong a presumption can be made that files of an entire recent movie IS infringing content that any file host would be legally obligated to remove it. So complete ignorance is claimed.
) Downloader now feels beyond the reach of legalities, doesn’t worry about the morality, downloads data fully expecting it to be content of that recent $100M movie, and is very rarely disappointed in that expectation.
So long as steps in the chain are separate, all the criminals involved can claim they’re just inside of “legal”. But of course all take care to hide identity (often with proxies) and make various excuses to ease conscience, because they’ve guilty knowledge of removing some income from the actual creators of content. The excuses are immoral. The grifters who didn’t put a cent into creating, but only divert the rightful revenue stream to themselves in this symbiotic piracy, are not only immoral but criminal too.
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Maybe you should try writing a piece on “why a lack of due process is IMMORAL” since you’re taking to the morality high horse.
Think much?
Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
@ AC: “Maybe you should try writing a piece on “why a lack of due process is IMMORAL” since you’re taking to the morality high horse.
Think much?”
Well, first, I CAN claim that Dotcom is GUILTY without a court trial. The evidence was all over his site: infringing content plus income from advertising and premium speeds. There’s no doubt on that point, kids. It’s not as though you and I haven’t seen the details.
2nd, this AC simply tries to put the burden of proof on me that Dotcom is both immoral and guilty under statute. — If he’s so clearly not guilty, why is he fighting extradition? He could come to the US, demand a speedy trial, and soon enough be out from under this case besides set a precedent for all future, right? But seems he doesn’t want to crusade in open court, but to hide behind national borders. — And he operated over those borders, that’s why the US has a case in the first place. Money from the US for premium speeds is exactly doing busines in the US, regardless that he didn’t give a physical address where DOJ could serve him.
So, AC, it’s up to make the case, on any grounds, that Dotcom operated morally. I say not for reasons given, that you don’t even bother to contradict.
Your accusation that I don’t want due process even for a known pirate is just wrong. But argument here on the point boils down to “Dotcom is physically outside the US”. New procedures need to be made, but lack of those, or violation of current, doesn’t legalize anything that Dotcom has done, or IS now doing with Mega. He can still be prosecuted once procedures are clarified.
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Quote:
Quote:
Material all over the place? you do understand that a movie is not cocaine right?
If I store a movie I bought on a file locker, is perfectly legal, or are you saying I cannot store my movies that I bought legally in the cloud?
Quote:
Nope, he would not get a fair trial in the US, if the US government was so keen on getting to him as to use completely bogus claims to extradict him and try to get some proof of his guilty, what kind of trial do you think he would get in an American court are you blind?
Quote:
Well at this point in time his pirate status is alleged not confirmed by any court of law now is it?
Further you can’t even provide any kind of proof of his alleged criminal activities, except debunked theories that make no sense at all.
What else do you have?
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
By that logic, HBO GO is guilty without a cort trial.
Try again.
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
— If he’s so clearly not guilty, why is he fighting extradition?
Ahh, so the “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you shouldn’t have anything to hide” argument. Yup – it’s clear to me (and likely everyone else) that with that one statement, you support REMOVING any due process protections.
— So, AC, it’s up to make the case, on any grounds, that Dotcom operated morally. I say not for reasons given, that you don’t even bother to contradict.
So he now needs to prove hes’ innocent instead? Got it.
Thanks for HELPING to make my point, jackass. It’s CLEAR that you DON’T think much (if at all).
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
So guilty until proven innocent.
Wow. Just wow.
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Oh, the old, “If he has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear” chestnut! What a load of shit! If he’s innocent he shouldn’t have to let them subject him to extradition. Only a complete moron would let that go without a fight. Assenting to the authorities simply to appease their suspicions just invites them to walk over everyone and ignore the fact that innocent people have the right to not be harassed by the law! What if the law were to accuse you of ethereal crimes that you are innocent of? Would you allow them to proceed? Would you let them violate your privacy so they can confirm that you’re not a criminal? How would you like it if the police just raided your house at random to do just that? Every time you suggest that people you think are obviously guilty should be subjected to that, you also suggest it be allowed to be done to everyone else, merely upon accusation.
“Well, first, I CAN claim that Dotcom is GUILTY without a court trial. The evidence was all over his site: infringing content plus income from advertising and premium speeds. There’s no doubt on that point, kids. It’s not as though you and I haven’t seen the details.”
That’s not evidence, that’s your fucking opinion! Megaupload is a business and like all businesses, they operate to earn profit. So they find ways to do that. Just because MU makes money doesn’t mean that the actions of their customers adjoins MU as an accomplice to infringement. MU is blameless for the actions of their customers. If you want attack and accuse someone of being a dirty fucking pirate, why don’t you point that avarice at the people that fucking uploaded that content?
Re: Re: Re:2 How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
She won’t “talk back” to you because… omg, the swears. (And thats all it is, talking back, not engaging. Just “i know better than you, sonny! take it from me! I am the authority here”)
shakes head
Re: Re: Re:3 How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
She never responds to me. She knows I’d keep her tied up in a cycle of symbiotic trolling.
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Burden of proof falls to the ACCUSER.
the AC does not simply TRY to put the burden of proof on you, the burden of proof was yours to BEGIN WITH.
The rest falls apart from there, since by your logic he should prove his innocence. Well, you have yet to prove guilt just because you say “I can claim him guilty without a trial” doesn’t mean you have proven anything. The evidence “all over his site” was not put there by him, and since the US is bringing the trial, the DMCA applies, and safe harbors applies. The fact that he was advertising and had premium speeds are not related. There is lots of doubt on your points, child.
Put up a legal brief with cited cases and a legal theory.
And please, get over yourself. No one in the world but you believes in the monsters you’ve made for yourself.
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Wow, blue is responding to posts here?
That’s good, it means the community effort to give back to him for all the comments he drives is working!
Though I have to admit, he does sound lonely.
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
“If he’s so clearly not guilty, why is he fighting extradition?”
Maybe he’s decided that “justice” in the USA is a farce and that the government is now just a private police force for Hollywood. Don’t know how he would get that opinion. Maybe it’s because press releases are made from Disney HQ. Or that a woman got charged millions of dollars for the digital equivalent of shoplifting a CD.
Re: Re: Re:2 How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Oh yeah. I remember. It’s the revolving door between the DOJ and MPAA. That’s it.
Re: Re: Re:2 How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
“If he’s so clearly not guilty, why is he fighting extradition?”
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Can you provide a link to proof of his guilt? I have used Megauploads to download mods for games. Now to someone that comes to hasty incorrect conclusions, those files could look like they are infringing. They have pictures of a game, they contain data and content from that game, but they are not actually that game.
The many times I have used Megauploads, I did not know that it could be used to download infringing content. I did not care for it to much as I thought the site had to many adds. Either way, if you are so certain that he is guilty then why is it so hard to come up with the proof when they had taken all of the data from Megauploads?
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
If he’s so clearly not guilty, why is he fighting extradition?
Yeah! Why would an innocent person fight being extradited halfway around the world to be tried in a foreign country that blatantly ignored its own and your own country’s laws to obtain evidence against you that it won’t let you see, while denying you access to any funds to pay for a defense?
Re: Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
And you must a rapist.
You have all of the tools required to be a rapist, so you must be one.
You should just hand yourself in to the police and ask to be taken straight to Jail.
No trial is required. No Due Process.
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Quote:
Quote:
Which can be recouped even in an enviroment where piracy is rampant, as Hollywood prove every year despite claims to the contrary.
Further a multi billion dollar market exists that does away with “protections” it is called open source have you ever heard of it?
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
Even if we assume that copyright is just and functional, according to common sense the person doing the illegal activity is the one responsible, not the bus company, not the mail company, not the transport company unless you can prove colusion. Can you prove Kim Dotcom colluded with thousands of people to promote piracy?
Rethorical because we all know you can’t and apparently FBI can’t either.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
So what, many people know that there are crimes done in their neighborhoods, and we actually don’t allow people to take the law into their own hands, it almost always ends up baddly, now you want everyone to start acting like vigilants for an industry that can’t even prove that they are being harmed?
It is not a problem for other companies or individuals to actually watch after others interests, mostly because third parties cannot know what is legal or illegal, they don’t have access to the data to make that kind of decision meaning they are incompetent to actually verify if it is really illegal or not.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
So since when trying to abide by the law is a crime or proof of intent to commit a crime?
Have Megaupload personell glanced at any file they would not know if it was infringing or not, you do understand that those things are used to store personal material, many of which was bought and paid for legally don’t you, how can you attest that it is illegal or not? are you an idiot?(rethorical). Further is not their obligation to verify the legality or not of the material being stored, there are no legal obligations to do that, none whatsoever, nowhere in the fraking world and there is a reason for it.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Quote:
Downloaders always felt out of reach of legalities, sharing should not be a crime and it is not viewed as such no matter how much BS or propaganda you throw at it, this is a behavior that will not change the reason being, sharing is actually how we cope with life, is how we acquire, experience and discover things, life is a bitch for monopolies I know.
Conclusion:
You are full of shite.
Re: Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Interesting how the boy is desperately reposting.
Must not be getting the credits from his corporate masters if his posts don’t stay up.
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
Ah, I see. So anyone that isn’t actively trying to stamp out infringement is actively promoting and profiting from it? Nice false dichotomy you got there. Be careful, it looks a bit fragile.
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
They need to work out that the market has spoken. Producers need to adjust their practice’s and spend. The flood gates have opened for media distribution. Legacy industry can no longer blind side people into a select number of studios.
Either there is change or we can either imprison most the 1st world or they can go bankrupt. Society has given you the options change or go out of business.
PS interesting how infrequently the huge number of independent producers figures aren’t considered by the likes of mpaa . if they were clever they would leave the legacy stuff and jump on the independent support one to ensure there longevity
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
They need to work out that the market has spoken. Producers need to adjust their practice’s and spend. The flood gates have opened for media distribution. Legacy industry can no longer blind side people into a select number of studios.
Either there is change or we can either imprison most the 1st world or they can go bankrupt. Society has given you the options change or go out of business.
PS interesting how infrequently the huge number of independent producers figures aren’t considered by the likes of mpaa . if they were clever they would leave the legacy stuff and jump on the independent support one to ensure there longevity
Re: How Symbiotic Piracy Works, and why it's immoral
First class bovine excrement, as usual.
Dear FBI,
So long suckers.
LoL
Message from NZ judge to FBI
Dear FBI:
You are hereby ordered to destroy any and all digital materials in regards to the Kim Dotcom investigation. Failure to obey this order may result in the NZ court doing absolutely nothing because we are NZ and not the USA, so we don’t assume to have authority over any other sovereign nation.
Sorry. Please disregard this order.
Sincerly,
High Court Justice Helen Winkelmann
Re: Message from NZ judge to FBI
They lose their “good faith” basis if they don’t comply with orders issued by NZ judges.
Re: Re: Message from NZ judge to FBI
Yeah, cause that certainly mattered the first time it happened, but I’m sure when the FBI once again ignores the NZ order, the NZ judge(s) will finally realize that Dotcom has no chance in hell of a fair trial if extradited and deny the extradition ‘request’ for good. /s
As much as I’d love it if the NZ people involved were to grow some spines and tell the US to shove off, if they were going to do so, I think they would have done so already.
Bad Month
It appears to me that the DOJ is having a really bad month. Or is it that a whole bunch of their bullshit is coming to the surface all at once?
Makes one wonder what is coming next, as the blocks continue to tumble.
Whatever happened to that hosting service that hosted all of megauploads servers? did that ever get resolved? I think it was called Carpathia?
Re: Re:
Clearly they were shut down for assisting a service that assisted copyright infringement. The power company that provided electricity to that host was also shut down for assisting infringement.
Re: It is a millstone for them
No one is paying but they aren’t allowed to destroy/reuse them. The US has their evidence and said destroy the remaining evidence since we won’t pay. Megaupload want’s to keep them but has no assets to pay for it. The judge went talk to each other but in the meanwhile don’t do anything to those servers.
Not illegal
I can see the reply argument already: none of the material was taken illegally (especially after we changed the law) so we don’t have to give it back.
Out of the blue is an idiot who can’t tell John Dillinger and Al Capone apart.
Holding FBI In Contempt?
It is amusing to imagine what sorts of responses could be taken against the FBI for refusal to abide by orders. Keeping their local officials in jail for contempt of court would be hilariously karmic. Sure it wouldn’t keep them away forever but having to bring in diplomatic means to get their people out would be a big loss of face that they deserve richly. Or perhaps refusal to recognize the FBI’s authority as legitimate. Perfectly fair, if they refuse to cooperate with them then they won’t either and they have torpedoed their own credibility so no loss.
Re: Much easier way to handle it
Nah, they could probably wiggle their way out of something like that without much trouble, and it would be, at most, annoying the agents in NZ, not actually doing anything against the ones who executed the whole debacle. Not to mention going after local agents would just make the NZ judges look bad, so probably best to avoid that option.
No, what the NZ court should do, and in fact what they should have done already, if the FBI refuses (again) the order from the court, is to declare the refusal good enough grounds to assume that Dotcom would get anything but a fair trial in the US, and deny the extradition request for good.
Guilt is established by due process.
How can someone say Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process in the same sentence? Isn’t guilt determined by due process?
Also, he can (and should) be acquitted regardless of guilt when the justice system fails to respect his rights when trying to prosecute him.
Unless you have inside knowledge of what Dotcom did, he is only allegedly guilty, and is by definition (in most countries) innocent until due process establishes his guilt.
The United States Department of Justice should pay...
The US DoJ should re-compensate Dotcom severely in this case as a material demonstration of contrition, since the end result of its recklessness has been to set back cloud-based business computing for years, which I suspect to have severe detriment to the world’s economies.
Frankly, it’d be nice if we could force them to pay such monies into an internet development fund (because it seems that Dotcom really doesn’t need the money) but he would be the natural recipient of the penalty.
Maybe Mr. Dotcom would do us the favor of acquiring an obnoxious throne and a gaudy, grotesque scepter as to remind us of the consequences when departments of justice decide to bend to the will of special corporate interests, and not stick to, say, actually serving the justice of the people.
From what I’ve seen so far, they haven’t learned a thing from it, so yeah, this needs to sting. Make it monetary.
#102 and #103 are mine.
I didn’t notice I was signed out and I’m not sure how to claim those posts.