Megaupload Helped DOJ In NinjaVideo Prosecution; And DOJ Uses That Against Megaupload

from the outrageous dept

On Friday, we wrote about the unsealed seizure warrants against Megaupload, and noted that they showed how Megaupload had assisted in a criminal investigation, in which they were told not to interfere with the files, but then those very files were used as evidence against Megaupload itself. It's now come out that this was part of the case against NinjaVideo, which we wrote about a few times. Apparently, NinjaVideo used Megaupload to store some of its files, and the DOJ sent a warrant to Megaupload, which they complied with:
“Megaupload complied with the warrant and cooperated with the government’s request,” Rothken said. He said Megaupload had gotten “a number of such warrant and subpoena type requests a year and still have an expectation that as classic ‘online service providers’ they are immune from liability for the acts of users who are the target of such warrants and subpoenas.”
But, as the unsealed warrants show, the DOJ later used those same files as evidence that Megaupload "knew" there were infringing files on its servers, leaving out the bit about how they had requested Megaupload not delete them. That seems like yet more fairly egregious behavior by the DOJ in a case that's chock full of it. Once again, I'm left wondering how the DOJ could do so many questionable things in their pursuit of Dotcom. It really looks like they bought Hollywood's mythic story about Dotcom hook, line and sinker, and believed that once they took him down, the case would simply fall into place.
Rothken calls the government’s argument “outrageous.” Given the NinjaVideo search warrant, and the government’s specific request for secrecy and to retain the files, Megaupload might have been accused of evidence-spoliation if it had taken the movies down, says Rothken.

“If anything, such a cooperation request by the government bolstered Megaupload’s view that as a cloud storage intermediary it was operating lawfully even if some users may have been misbehaving,” Rothken said.
Back when the Megaupload indictment and arrests first came down, I had a conversation with a couple of lawyers who insisted that, given the claims in the indictment, the DOJ must have had really strong evidence against Megaupload. But pretty much every discovery since then has suggested that they only had strong evidence in their minds...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:30am

    And yet the indictment still stands and your buddy is still in the process of being extradited. You keep telling us that the government's case is lost, yet the case keeps chugging forward.

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:38am

    Plenty of room in there

    But pretty much every discovery since then has suggested that they only had strong evidence in their minds...

    Seems to be plenty of empty space in there to store all the "evidence".

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:39am

    What the DOJ has done is committed entrapment. In the US, that would get the case thrown out immediately with prejudice.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Re:

    Who are you making a point for/against?
    Your comment seems to have the tone against Mike, but the words say otherwise.

    "yet the case keeps chugging forward" I cant wait until this finally gets in front of a judge.

    You are ok with them issuing a non-takedown takedown then using the requested files as proof they infringed? You smoking shit with OOTB, boB, and average_joe? Must be some good shit.

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    In the US court of Law, what the DOJ has committed is known as Entrapment. So even if Kim Dotcom gets extridited, the case is already bolstered.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    Your point?

    The case isn't officially lost until it's dismissed or actually lost in court. The government can't dismiss at this point because they would lose what very little credibility they already have. Either a judge has to dismiss it based on Mega's defense team's motions, or it will go to trial. What is being pointed out time and time again is that every shred of "evidence" that has been shown by the DOJ has been debunked, taken out of context, been extremely weak, or all of the above.

    Every time the DOJ is shown to have made another mistake, it is in fact news worthy. They are supposed to represent our laws and justice system, and evidence of their hypocrisy and incompetence is something the public needs to be aware of.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Except that there are many, many legal reasons that the case should have been dropped/dismissed by now, and still it continues as you note. De facto evidence of the gov's abuse of power, and its absolute ability to rail anybody it wants into a untenable position.

    Stop being so smug. It just hasn't been your turn yet to be on the receiving end of the hammer that has become the government.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:43am

    "What the DOJ has done is committed entrapment. In the US, that would get the case thrown out immediately with prejudice."

    You misspelled "a fictional utopia" as "the US". It's a pretty egregious typo.

    In all seriousness, where exactly do you think this case is being tried? The DOJ you are referring to is the United States Department of Justice.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:44am

    No, it's quite simple Mike, lets use a similar situation to show just how reasonable the DOJ are being.

    -Person A robs Bank A and steals over $10 million dollars in cash.

    -Person A hides the cash they stole in a bank account in Bank B.

    -The Police catch Person A, and order Bank B to keep the money locked up as evidence against Person A.

    -Bank A later complains after Person A is convicted that Bank B is stealing their money.

    -The Police arrest the owners of Bank B and seize all their assets for theft against Bank A.

    -Because Bank A is so important and cooperative in the case against Bank B, The Police give Bank A all of Bank B's assets to hold onto as evidence while they put Bank B on trial.

    You see, perfectly reasonable! Bank B is a crook who stole money from Bank A and Person A! So Bank B used The Police to steal their assets back!

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:45am

    Re:

    Chugging is a good way to put it.

    If they had evidence as solid as they wanted us to believe, the case would be teleporting forward.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re:

    obviously, if the government is investigating you, you are guilty

    why else would they investigate you?


    the govt should throw the book at this guy. they obviously have the evidence against him. oh wai

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:48am

    Re:

    So, are you saying he must be guilty of something since he's been arrested? Guilty until proven innocent? There must be some evidence against him, otherwise they wouldn't hold him?

    Because, you know, a government organization would readily admit its mistake and release any seized or forfeited assets, rather than unlawfully infringe on another's rights, just like they've always done.(SarcMark™)

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Must really suck to be unpersoned in the middle of a sentence

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:00pm

    Re:

    I'm sorry. I got lost in your comment. It sounded like back of the cereal box instructions to me.

    So Tab A goes where and what do I do with Slot B again?

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    A, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re:

    Nah, I doubt he's smoking/snorting/shooting anything with OotB, bob or AJ. And I say that as someone who knows people who do all of those things. Because even people doing all that make some sense and have a firm grasp of reality from time to time. This one AC and those other three mentioned DO NOT. Although AJ flirts with it from time to time, but I happen that more to chance than anything.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:03pm

    Seen recently on Washington DC Craigslist:

    Justice for sale -- highest bidder
    AA-curious solicitors seek international clientele
    Specializing in bondage with indefinite detention
    No contortions too outlandish!
    Your pic gets mine

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:06pm

    Re:

    yet the case keeps chugging forward
    in the teeth of all reason and evidence

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:07pm

    Re:

    My brain may have just exploded... this post needs a Primer flowchart.

    I think your last line should say "Bank A used The Police to steal their assets back!"

    So Bank A is MAFIAA...
    Person A is individual Mega users...
    And Bank B is Mega?

    Either that or I just made a wrong turn at Albuquerque...

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re:

    Excuse me, do you know the way to the tendo dojo?

     

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

  20. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:11pm

    Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.

    Actually, it's cost-effective! You should hail this as both innovation and saving taxpayer money!

    Look. A criminal doesn't necessarily get off for helping catch another AFTER the fact. -- The files were there PRIOR to Ninjavideo bit, right?







    Take a moment for Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick and click:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
    Actual unsolicited testimonial: "Until I read Techdirt.com, I didn't know what shameless self-promotion was!"

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Re:

    Why the fuck are you talking about a bank?

    This is an article about a cyberlocker. A completely different entity.
    Also, note that Megaupload was never charged with theft of money. At worst, the DOJ may charge them with somehow interfering with someone's income stream due to copyright, but that is a far cry from actual theft of money.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.

    This "criminal" SHOULD get off, considering he was told by the DoJ NOT to delete the files...otherwise it's called entrapment and using that, any competent lawyer can get him off scot free.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re:

    FBI are masters of entrapment, and the know how to play teh game - look at all the 'terrorist plot' cases against hapless, mentally disturbed youngsters they are bringing. It's sickening and it has nothing to do with the rule of law.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Kind of reminds me of the way a group of us used to act weeks after the Dead came to town. LOL.

     

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

  25.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:23pm

    Well, no wonder the DoiJ knew there would be infringing files on MU's servers when they were seized, and in fact knew exactly which ones they were, given they told MU to leave them there.

    Assuming this case ever gets tried in the US, I cannot wait to see what mental patient they plan on sticking in judge's robes to try this one, as any judge with even a pinch of common sense or respect for the law would laugh the DoiJ out of court during their opening statements.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:30pm

    Dotcom's extradition may be further delayed from March 2013 to July 2013 now because the US is rejecting to provide evidence http://news.msn.co.nz/article.aspx?id=8568161

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    ....
    should. it Should get the case thrown out immediately with prejudice.

    see, thing is, the case against Megaupload?
    that IS taking place in the US.

    the only stuff that's happening in NZ is an attempt to extradite Kim Dotcom ... which.... doesn't seem to be getting anywhere all that fast. partially because, hey, legal system, and partially because every time something like this comes out it makes it look more and more like the political nonsense it is rather than a matter of law and justice.

    on the flip side, the longer it drags out, the more of Dotcom's funds are drained away, so the harder it is for him to come back from it... but the more State funds are drained away and the more pissed off the public get about it.

    'course, there's the usual pro US right wing Morons who think the correct solution to such a situation is to just let the USG have him. .... i call them morons for a reason. at this point, the correct response is to bill the USG for the whole mess, and/or reject the extradition.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    the DoJ didn't have to buy what Hollywood told them, they were more than willing participants. this was a case of friends helping out other friends and the law never entered the frame at all. having read about this earlier, i am trying to decide whether the DoJ agent actually existed or was simply a made up character seeing as how the name is redacted. i am also trying to find out how to get hold of a couple of the 'undercover computers' that were used in the case. i am sure i will be able to find a use for them at sometime!

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re:

    while said cereal box instructions are rare here (the products largely sell themselves or don't sell at all), they Have shown up from time to time (i think there was a model space shuttle one time...) ...

    they made FAR more sense than that.

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re:

    except that the mafIAA keep trying to claim that it IS theft, the USG keeps trying to claim that somehow this is terrorism or something, and that the bank thing was a 'would be joking if it weren't dead on' explanation/analogy of the utterly bullshit 'logic' involved, the nature of the actual entities being irrelevant. (could have used trees, squirrels, and nuts rather than banks, people, and money, and it would have held.)

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re:

    The extradition will likely be pushed back from March to July now because the US are rejecting to supply evidence.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:43pm

    Re:

    *facepalm*

    worst part is that it's draining Dotcom's coffers, draining the NZG's coffers... and is basically an irrelevant drop in the bucket in the USG's budget/debt situation. they can pretty much keep this up indefinately... and the international level response to unpaid debts, the only way to reclaim them, is invasion... and there's no way NZ can get anywhere trying to pull That stunt vs the US... so even if the case is tossed and the USG stuck with the bill for the whole chain of bullshit, nothing will come of it.

    (especially as our PM (and others) seems to be getting along FAR too well with the entities responsible for this mess...)

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    Re:

    And yet the indictment still stands and your buddy is still in the process of being extradited. You keep telling us that the government's case is lost, yet the case keeps chugging forward.

    I never said the government's case is lost. Nor is Dotcom "my buddy." I find the guy to be ridiculous. I just noted how much of their evidence seems highly questionable.

    But you aren't here to argue reality. You're here to smear the strawman in your head that you think is me.

    Btw what happened to your promise to stop posting here this year? That lasted what, 5 seconds?

     

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

  34.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re:

    Not a lawyer, so I'm not quite sure on this, but given how the US is acting in this whole debacle, could the judge in NZ simply order a deadline that the US has to meet with regards to providing the ordered evidence, under threat of the case being dismissed if they fail to comply?

    I know at this point the NZ judge(s) would be more than justified in doing so, just not sure if they could legally.

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    JP Jones (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.

    Ooob, are you being serious or is this a joke? I honestly can't tell.

    Let me see if I understand. So a person deposits stolen money into a bank. The police find out there is stolen money in the bank. The police should charge the bank with aiding criminal activity? Or for not identifying that the money was stolen before accepting it?

    Never mind. The only rational solution is to ban banks altogether. Obviously.

    /sigh

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    Re:

    Go watch the courtroom scene in the movie "Idiocracy". That's exactly how this will play out if this case gets tried in the US.

    (Also, check out the hospital scene for a Windows 8 cameo)

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    "You keep telling us that the government's case is lost, yet the case keeps chugging forward"

    The government's case is stalled and starting to roll backward, otherwise Dotcom would've been extradited long ago.
    Try again, boy.

     

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

  38. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re:

    Wah. I don't like to be challenged on my beliefs!

     

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

  39. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re:

    And, seriously dude, it's 100% completely obvious to every single human being on this planet that every article you write about the Megaupload prosecution favors Dotcom et al. There's no need to lie and pretend like you aren't on their side. What a sad and pathetic person you must be that you can't be frank and honest about what you truly and honestly believe.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 1:49pm

    I want a timeline for this entire case since it's such a comedy farce. No one could write it this good. I'm glad NZ didn't just follow marching orders.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 2:20pm

    DOJ needs to go back to law school.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re:

    Illustrative examples fly over head. Zoooooom like Peanut.

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    arcan, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Plenty of room in there

    I thought they only had 4 terabytes?

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    AB, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Just because men and women died to protect your right to be a jerk doesn't mean any of them would have liked you. Likewise, Mike doesn't have to like Dotcom to write a story about the lawsuit centered on him.

    Personally, I think Mike's stories do more to highlight government misconduct than defend Dotcom, but we are each entitled to our own opinion.

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    AB, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 3:10pm

    At least now we know why the mafiAA were so eager to have all the data wiped.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re:

    You guys are being incredibly silly.

    The Ninja Video files were hardly the only thing necessary to demonstrate that Megaupload's business model was based on the illegal trafficking of content.

    Really guys? Are you REALLY going to go full-on delusional at this point? Is that your strategy in your war on copyright? I guarantee that you will end up on the losing end of this equation if you choose to soldier on being willfully blind to what is happening.

     

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

  47. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh please. Seriously, stop with the delusional postings. Masnick sides with the pirates and everyone knows it. Good lord.

    He also apparently spies on anonymous commenter's IP addresses. What an upstanding guy...

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    ldne, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 3:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You really should read virtually all of the other media stories on the case, because they're just as obviously in Dotcom's favor as these ones are. Why? Because the Federal government has misrepresented the case from the start, that's why. I mean, the Judges in NZ, you know, the guys who are actually present and involved in the case and are privy to far more details than you are, keep complaining about all of the irregularities and illegalities on the part of the US DOJ and yet you're complaining about bias on a web site that reports on copyright weasels? Seems to me you're the one with a frankness and honesty issue.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Kind of delusional that Rapidshare is still operational and they host infringing copyright on there servers that people are sharing and doing excatcly what Megaupolad was doing. They too paid people to upload files for which people uploaded copyright files to earn money from people downloading them. Rapidshare are still operational and Meguaupload gets the SWAT team in which has now been proved to be illegal. So why aren't the US getting Rapidshare shutdown and taken to court and sued for the loss of millions to that they have stolen from copyright holders.

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Hey! You're that guy in the Prius, aren't you?

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:04pm

    Shows what they get for selling out.

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:07pm

    Re:

    They wanted the data wiped so that the cloud of fear would hit every cyberlocker. A majority of the users would blame the provider, not the insane DoJ cartel enforcement.

    There are still a few cyberlockers blocking all US IP addresses, hoping that will be enough to keep the DoJ away.

    Rapidshare is the posterchild for your screwed no matter what you do. They have been sued globally by the cartels, they have done everything required by law in countries where they have no actual presence, they have gone above and beyond giving the cartels access that should run afoul of the law... and they are still top of the list for the naughty pirate bastard companies special report list.

    The only way to make the cartels happy is to go out of business, which is what they want of every new technology that could possibly have any use they don't like. If the cartel ran banks, they would demand guns and cars be outlawed because they COULD be used to rob a bank.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Tihi. You are kind of cute when you shine! "Heeey mate where are you going with that gun in your hand?"

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He also apparently spies on anonymous commenter's IP addresses. What an upstanding guy...

    If I am not mistaken the little pattern next to your post is based on your IP address. Makes it easier to see which morons keep making stupid comments instead of just shooting themselves and doing the world a big favor...

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "...Megaupload's business model was based on the illegal trafficking of content."

    It's amusing how difficult it's been to provide enough evidence of that for even an extradition.

    "Really guys? Are you REALLY going to go full-on delusional at this point? Is that your strategy in your war on copyright?"

    Well it seems to be working for the content industries! They're doing a fine job of ignoring the real world.

    "I guarantee that you will end up on the losing end of this equation if you choose to soldier on being willfully blind to what is happening."

    And I guarantee you that even if the USG wins this one, the real losers long-tem will be the content industries (and by that I don't mean content creators). Laws only work if they're respected, and the public's respect for copyright law is low and continuing to drop in no small part because of cases like this. The more they fight against public will, the sooner they'll disappear into irrelevancy. And good riddance to those that do.

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Oh please. Seriously, stop with the delusional postings."

    You first.

    "Masnick sides with the pirates and everyone knows it."

    Three or four regular anti-everything-Techdirt commenters hardly counts as "everyone". That delusion is purely your own.

    "He also apparently spies on anonymous commenter's IP addresses."

    Even if you're convinced yourself this is true, it clearly doesn't bother you enough to actually stop posting, so what's your actual problem? Simply too chicken to stand behind all of your comments, even anonymously?

     

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

  57.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 4:53pm

    Re: Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.

    "A criminal doesn't necessarily get off for helping catch another AFTER the fact. -- The files were there PRIOR to Ninjavideo bit, right?"

    Simply having infringing files stored at MegaUpload does not make them criminals. Jeez, are you really that stupid? It's mind-boggling the crap you come up with.

     

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

  58.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I know at this point the NZ judge(s) would be more than justified in doing so, just not sure if they could legally.

    I think it's also a question of whether it can be done diplomatically.

    The US Government is a pretty scary adversary. Just sayin'

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 6:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A person would indeed have to be a moron to post here (or anywhere else) without a proxy.

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 9:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    True enough, but these days merely saying 'No' to the USG makes you an enemy, and considering the NZ judge has already done that by refusing to go along with the farce that is the MU 'case' by just handing Dotcom over, other than putting NZ on one of the US's dreaded 'bad peoples' lists, not sure there's much they could do that wouldn't get them some unpleasant reactions internationally.

     

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

  61.  
    identicon
    Loki, Nov 21st, 2012 @ 10:46pm

    I've said from the day this seizure was announced that this had nothing to do with infringement, and everything to do with the fact MegaUpload was preparing to launch a seriously competitive service to the music and movie industries.

    And as more and more information has come forward, I've seen nothing, and I mean nothing, that suggests this is anything more than an attempt to lock out competition, and scare off other who might be inclined to honestly compete with the current major corps (and give actually content creators real choices).

     

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

  62.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Technically it is already teleporting forward. After all, the DOJ has gone from point A to point C to point J without crossing the legally-required points B, D, E or F along the way.

     

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

  63.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, the truth favors Dotcom. Funny how someone telling the truth makes you their natural enemy.

     

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

  64.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Nov 21st, 2012 @ 11:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If a private citizen refuses to supply evidence to a court they end up slapped with contempt charges and/or a default judgment against them. If they do it repeatedly they get their case dismissed with prejudice.

    When a government does it, the court merely grants infinite continuances until the information materializes or everyone involved dies of old age, whichever comes first.

     

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

  65.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:10am

    Re:

    yet the case keeps chugging forward.
    Really? Looks more like your buddys are reinventing snail mail.

     

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

  66.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:12am

    Re:

    yet the case keeps chugging forward
    yeah, try stumbling/crawling/failing...

     

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

  67.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I guarantee that you will end up on the losing end of this equation if you choose to soldier on being willfully blind to what is happening.

    Really? Do you also guarantee that piracy will be stopped?

     

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

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:25am

    Re: Re: Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.

    ootb is really that stupid and more. You'll be hard pressed to find a more self-serving, delusional piece of garbage on the interwebnetz.

     

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

  69.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Challenge? You'd need arguments for that, not hot air.

     

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

  70.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What an upstanding guy

    Preferably to being a stupid guy like you who doesn't know what a Gravatar is.

     

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

  71.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Right, think of all the backslash. LOL.

     

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

  72.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 12:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If I am not mistaken the little pattern next to your post is based on your IP address."

    It is, and it was introduced because certain people kept trolling the site pretending to be several different people. A quick glance at server logs revealed that it really was one or 2 morons derailing discussion every time, so the snowflake was introduced to help those of us without log access tell which anonymous moron was which.

    A far preferable solution than the alternatives, of course (e.g. banning IP addresses used by trolling tossers, requiring login before comment, etc.). But, apparently, allowing free anonymous speech and looking at publicly advertising information stored on your own web server is some kind of personal failing now.

    Stupid and illogical, but I expect no less from this delusional fool.

     

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

  73. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 1:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    IP "Snowflakes" do not cross into other article postings.

    That is a fact.

    Masnick spied on that supposed anonymous poster's IP addy, and has quite obviously been stalking him for months if you look at Masnick's response.

    Another fact:

    You're a gigantic, apologist douchebag, PaulT.

    Congratulations at failing at life in public.

     

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

  74.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 1:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, you really need to get your head seen to, you know that?

    Are you referring to a particular case? I don't know, you haven't said. You just flail and attack without making a point, only addressing the fantasies in your own head rather than the people actually engaging you. It's pathetic.

    "Masnick spied on that supposed anonymous poster's IP addy, and has quite obviously been stalking him for months if you look at Masnick's response."

    Which poster? In which article? Which comment are you talking about? Is there anything to suggest that Mike did anything other than run a search within his own logs, using information voluntarily supplied by a user who voluntarily posts here?

    Provide information, or disappear back under your bridge.

     

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

  75. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 2:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Which poster? In which article?

    "It is, and it was introduced because certain people kept trolling the site pretending to be several different people. A quick glance at server logs revealed that it really was one or 2 morons derailing discussion every time, so the snowflake was introduced to help those of us without log access tell which anonymous moron was which."

    You poor little puppy.

    Snowflakes don't apply across articles, PaulT.

    tsk, tsk.

    You're a pathetic suck-up to Masnick, PaulT. He's your symbiotic coward hero.

    Just like him, you're too ashamed to admit you're obsessed with content, the stealing of it, and the shame you feel about doing so.

     

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

  76.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 2:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, you don't want to back up your own assertions? OK, that's about what I expect from your type. If only you could be civil while admitting you have nothing.

    I was referring to a specific instance where twats like you kept making anonymous comments in the same thread as though there were multiple posters, and Mike said he looked at the logs and realised they were coming from the same user. IIRC, that's why the snowflake was brought in. Would you prefer it if your kind were simply banned? Of course the snowflake changes between articles, btw. If you can't work out why, your stupidity remains unchallenged.

    On the other hand, you are addressing some specific situation where Mike "stalked" a user for months and made a response that made you think he was doing this. Where and when was that response posted? In which article? In response to which poster?

    All I'm asking you to do is provide a link to the comments you're referring to, yet all you can do is whine and launch impotent personal attacks. A pathetic type behaviour for a human being, and you're not convincing anyone.

    There's only one conclusion I can reach - you're lying as much about Mike's behaviour as you are about mine. Prove me wrong, facts or STFU.

    "Just like him, you're too ashamed to admit you're obsessed with content, the stealing of it, and the shame you feel about doing so."

    Yes, I'm afraid to admit to a complete fiction that you pulled out of your ass. Well done. Does it tire you to be so completely wrong *all* the time?

    I'll be here waiting for your proof, while I get back to work, listening to the new Deftones album I have streaming on my paid Spotify Premium account.

     

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

  77.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 4:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ryoga, I told you! It's three blocks south! Last time you went East and ended up in Hong Kong.

    I'm still not sure how you did that.

     

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

  78.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.

    does bob or average_joe count?

     

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

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 5:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    One person could use several proxies, and several people could happen to use the same proxy. There are proxies which change IP addresses every few minutes. Then there is IP spoofing. I remember one time I checked my firewall log and there was an invasion attempt apparently from Russia using the exact same IP address as I had!

     

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

  80.  
    icon
    Keii (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 5:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm sorry but "Judge, come on, just look at them." and waving your hands a little bit isn't convincing enough evidence to win the case.
    Even with the additional evidence of "Come ooonnnn."

     

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

  81.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 9:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Aye, Re-Elect Public Upstanding Belief Lawyers In Congress Against News Stories

     

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

  82.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 9:07am

    Re: Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.

    Mike, can you write a script that this guy always ends up signing in as "out_of_his_butthole"?

     

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

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 9:17am

    Given the info in this article, unless the DOJ knew the judge was bought and operating a blatant kangaroo court, there's no way the DOJ could get away with making such a blatantly false claim. If they knew what they were doing, might not this be for PR purposes? Is the DOJ hoping CNN will pick it up and run with it? Everyone knows how lazy and sensationalist today's journalists are, they don't usually bother to follow up on pesky details. But judges do.

    I'm guessing it was a mistake on the DOJ's part. The simplest explanation is that this is a case of "gung-ho but green DOJ lawyer speed-reads NinjaVideo case, plucks out the bit that fits into Mega case, doesn't bother to read the details, slaps it into a many-paged legal document as one fact among many. Clutch of DOJ lawyers all assume somebody else read the details of the NinjaVideo case. Judge reads and makes the 'Kayla Maroney is not amused' face at DOJ lawyers."

    I'm a part-time legal secretary and I have to tell you, sometimes reading this stuff, when there's pages & pages of it, can make your eyes bleed and you have to force yourself to stop and try to wrap your brain around it.

     

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

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 9:29am

    Re:

    If the Judge made a mistake with not reading the warrant and all documents correctly before sealing them and now realises that if he had did his job and read correctly then there would have been no grounds to issue the warrant etc. then I doubt he will admit that he made a mistake and will carry on with the case as though nothing had happened. If there were no grounds to issue the warrant etc. then Megaupload would probably have not been seized and shutdown. If Megaupload can show/prove that the warrant and documents that were sealed do not hold water then I doubt the case will be dropped because it will then reflect back on the Judge who read and then issued the warrant etc. and I doubt that he would want to be shown in that matter so the case will not be dropped. The request to dismiss the case will be rejected and the same reasons for rejection will be given as last time.

     

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

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If someone is clearly here to not discuss, but to make personal attacks upon the posters, what would any reasonable person gain from promoting such behaviour?

     

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

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 22nd, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re:

    yes, but is the judge that signed off on the warrant the same judge that is hearing the case now? I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer..

     

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

  87.  
    identicon
    zub, Nov 23rd, 2012 @ 3:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The "sad" button is urgently needed.

     

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


Add Your Comment

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

Close

Email This