the Hosting company is a US entity.
Mega Upload is Not.
in the same way that a Sugar plantation (as a random example) that exports to the US is, none the less, NOT a US business (unless owned by a US corporation and blah blah blah) and doesn't need to have an address or presence in the US (even if their produce does sit in a warehouse in the US prior to sale.)
the paypal thing is like trying to claim that every business in the world that accepts Visa or American Express or whatever is a US business.
upshot of all this? it's Not Bound By US Law (though the other entities it's dealing with may be)... in spite of which, mind, it was following said law Anyway, and BY said law was not a legitimate target for the things it is accused of, even if it HAD been a US business.
Megaupload, the corporation/business/Whatever has no presence in the USA. it owns nothing there, has no address there, pays no taxes there, and so on, and so forth.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's not that damn hard to understand.
to flip it around: if a US company rented server space in Europe (like, say, i dunno, MANY MMORPGS?), we'll go with the Neitherlands for lack of a better pick off the top of my head, but had No offices there, all it's physical products were Exported to the Netherlands from the US, etc, etc... and some random Russian mafia types (for example) were using it's chat function or e-mail or Whatever on that server to organize criminal activity, amongst the Thousands of users doing whatever legitimate function the thing was designed for, would YOU be ok with the Dutch government compleatly destroying said US company's ability to function Before any court case was even begun? would said US company fall under Dutch law? note it has No Presence in the Neitherlands (it's renting hosting space from a company that IS, that's it.) and the people (supposedly, as they haven't even been identified, let alone charged) breaking the law have NOTHING to do with the company. oh, right, and most of the things the US company is being charged with are either activity that Dutch law says is legal OR such nonsense as 'paying rent on that hardware you're using is money laundering' 'making money on your business's primary function is evidence that you are wilfully encouraging illegal activity for profit' and so on.
does that sound legit to you At All?
again, not a lawyer, but this is the sort of bullshit we're dealing with here.
i suppose catastrophic existence failure can be read as 'not massive harm' in the same way that one can make the claim 'i'm not going to hurt you, just kill you'... maybe. probably not though. i really just wanted an excuse to say 'catastrophic existence failure.' hehe.
nevermind that the last of your three 'bigs' isn't even a Thing...
and 'big hardware', if it's even a thing, includes a number of entities who's current interests would put them on the Other Side of that debate...
how broken is your brain that your position even looks like something a sane person might actually even Consider before dismissing it as, at the very least, coming across as nothing more than deranged ranting?
possibly, though not that i know of.
they Are putting effort into upgrading the infrastructure though... and making it easier and easier to deal with them online, and more and more of a pain in the arse to do a lot of things any other way. ... which is why the possibility of losing your internet connection over this was deemed non-viable, as i understand it.
Tribunals are a bit weird. they're not entirely adversarial and are more about dispute resolution than anything. basically, if the RIANZ dropped it, and the other party isn't making a fuss, the dispute is resolved so the issue's over. (on the other hand, if a tribunal makes a ruling on the actions to be taken to resolve a dispute and one party or the other fails to follow that ruling they then end up in court facing, as i understand it, the Crown, for failure to comply. appeals can also be lodged and go through the normal court process.)
worth noting that the 'average New Zealander's HOUSEHOLD (not the individual) is highly unlikely to have over 2000 NZD in savings at any given time (and likely plenty of debts) college savings? nope. tertiary education is funded mostly by Loans and government allowances. mortgages and various other debts tend to eat the money that would otherwise be saved.
not sure there's enough weapons around here to do that without subverting the military though.
a few hunting rifles and sports(?) pistols, more swords than you'd expect (though a lot of them are either display blades of dubious utility or training blades... but there are people who make 'em about :D) oddly, a tank here and there (no ammo though) and trebuchets get built on a semi-regular basis as it is...
.... cheap cruise missiles with off the shelf parts are entirely possible (under 3kNZD)... sans warheads.
the same restrictions on weapons that make NZ so much more successful at keeping occupied regions under control also make it harder for us to revolt, ya know? if we were set up like the USA, we're still small enough that a revolt of that nature could happen and succeed without exceptional circumstances. but we're not. and most of us are Seriously glad of that. (and it's one of many reasons so many people have such strong objections to John Key's agenda and behaviour. we LIKE not being like the USA...)
the bit you seem to be completely missing (corruption is NOT ok and free speech does NOT protect it) is quite telling too.
there is no problem with these organizations having their say. there are MAJOR problems with them doing so behind closed doors with the leader of a Different Country who has ALREADY PROVEN to be woefully untrustworthy.... among a whole laundry list of other things.
WHAT they're saying is a problem (preventing them saying it is not the solution)
HOW they're saying it is a problem (preventing them saying it is not the solution. forcing them to say it in the appropriate forum IS...)
the fact that they get to say it at all is not.
basically, preventing corruption and treasonous behaviour (doesn't meet the legal definition required to go to court, but it sure as hell is that sort of behaviour) on the part of a national leader trumps bogus 'freedom of speech' claims.
(not legit ones, but claims that they're quite entitled to usurp the democratic process and use corrupt and underhanded means to achieve objectives contrary to the public interest because of Free Speech is just nonsense.)
Ugh. i doubt i explained that well. point is, you're fabricating an issue that ISN"T THERE to attack.
i believe that is a strawman?