I hate to point out the obvious but that any lawsuit the MPAA wringles out of the Megaupload evidence is surely going to get tossed out of court because any co9mpetent judge will realize that the government, working in collusion with a corrupted judge and the MPAA violated the due process rights of Megaupload and obtained evidence in violation of the "Rules of Evidence".
There's no way that the MPAA gets to use the evidence collected from those servers/hard drives in any type of trial. Getting the government to confiscate those servers/hard drives and then getting the government to hand over that evidence so that it could file lawsuits.
The MPAA may have harmed its position because any competent lawyer would ask the MPAA where the search warrant is for obtaining that information. Also, the same lawyer would be asking the MPAA if they happened to notify the court and what attorney of record represented Megaupload when they asked for said warrant.
When it comes out (in court) that MPAA obtained the data from the Megaupload servers through an ex-parte process with the government and a judge with NO opposing attorney representing the defendants, THEN ALL HELL IS GOING TO BREAK LOOSE.
Oh! The Appeals Courts are going to have fun with this one. Not only has the government violated due process, talked to a judge ex parte (which is a violation of court procedure) but I wouldn't be surprised if the judge who allowed this to happen gets dismissed from the bench for corrupting justice.
I wouldn't be surprised if the government is forced to drop their case against Megaupload as well as criticize the MPAA for their duplicity in this case as well.
I'm shocked that evidence that was being considered to be used in a criminal case was even allowed to be divulged to the MPAA lawyers. I suspect that the MPAA attorneys are going to be called in front of the ethics review board for that one.
If a 200 pound cop cannot restrain a 95-150 pound high school student, then that cop needs to find another job because he sure as hell has the wrong job.
If a police officer cannot subdue a suspect without a weapon (something that they should be trained to do anyways), then there is no reason in hell why they should be employed as a law enforcement officer.
Their sworn duty is to "protect and serve" not to beat someone to death, shoot them in the head or taser someone until they are in a coma.
Anybody who claims that a weapon is not lethal, no matter the intent of the weapon made, is either an idiot or a fool. It doesn't matter if it's a gun, knife, taser or baton. Law enforcement doesn't consider a baton to be a lethal weapon nor a taser a lethal weapon but yet they are banned for the public to own.
There is a reason why these are considered weapons, whether it's for defense or offense. Any weapon in the hands of a police officer is a lethal weapon and I find it disingenuous for law enforcement to say that this isn't so.
Gwiz, I'm in my late 40's and I've been through the public educational system, back when we had a liason officer with the police department. He was always respectful to the students but then again, we didn't have students bringing guns to school.
Guns, Knifes, Tasers, anything that could be used as a known weapon, should be banned, from both the students, facility staff, teachers AND anyone who is on the premises of any public educational facility.
When you throw police officers into the mix, it's not "if" something will happen between a cop and a student but "when" it will happen.
You have police officers armed with tasers or personnel who are employed by police departments who are already NOT properly trained in the use of tasers but you throw those officers into an environment with high school students and eventually you're going to have police officers tasering high school students.
Police officers should be placed in a high school environment because they lack the necessary training and they lack the university or college classes that prepare you for a public educational environment.
Whoever idea it was to put police officers in high schools, and forgive me for saying this as it's meant as a figure of speech, should either be shot or they should be hung from the nearest tree until the end of time.
It's the same reason why we do not allow our military to be deployed into the borders of our country, with the sole exception of a national crisis and even that requires the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Really stupid idea. If police officers need to stationed at schools, then their authority as police officers need to end at the door and they need to be required to be on the property WITHOUT a gun, baton or taser.
High school students are NOT criminals, whether these cops think they are or not.
I just realized. The U.S. Government is putting everybody on the No Fly List because they don't want Americans leaving the United States, giving up their citizenship, and revolting to another country, a more friendlier country.
When a website owner is not doing anything to curb the behavior of inappropriate content, then the owner of the site SHOULD be held liable. After all, website owners all around the world are being held liable for the content posted by their members.
This all started with bit torrent and filesharing sites. Did anyone honestly believe that courts would keep that contained to just filesharing sites?
What you guys are forgetting is that Europe is not in the United States. Since Wikipedia has created a German portal, they are responsible for the content posted on their site.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to follow the laws of other countries and if a court finds that a website can be held liable then the owner of that website either needs to block Germany from accessing Wikipedia or start monitoring what its users are posted.
For those who say that Wikipedia doesn't do this, your argument is non-existent. Because Wikipedia already logs every change made to its website and they have thousands of assigned moderators and editors who actively monitor their website.
I happen to agree with the German courts on this one. What nobody realizes is that if a member on a website posts something inflammatory or they post something libel, and the owner of that website does not take adequate measures to remove that content, then the website administrator/owner SHOULD be held libel for that content.
At the same time, I think that website owners should have a certain limited period of time to identify the libel content and to remove it within an appropriate period of time.
Website owners should be held libel if they don't take appropriate steps to ensure that its users aren't posting such content. After all, website owners cannot immediately remove some content while denying the ability to remove other similar libel content.
Feinstein keeps saying "bombs, bombs, bombs and more bombs". Does she own that word where she gets $5 everytime she says it? And Rogers talking about Al Qaeda and their splinter groups.
Well, who's fault is that? The White House and Congress deciding that they had a right to invade any country in the Middle East because every country nin the Middle East who doesn't do what the White House tells them to do is labeled a terrorist.
Where are the terrorist attacks?
ON September 11th, Osama bin Laden only got lucky. Since then? We had a guy who tried to light his underwear on fire; another guy who tried to catch his shoes on fire and the New York attack where a guy used fertilizer that did not explode and he locked the keys to the car bomb inside the car.
It's like Al Qaeda is outsourcing to Ringling Brothers. This was discovered to be the plot for a new Jim Carey movie.