"I mean, really? If they have to show him the evidence, he might be able to defend against it! How would that be fair to the DoJ?"
Of course the DOJ don't want him to see the evidence because they don't want him to be able to defend himself against it. It would be unfair and unlawful to deprive someone to see the evidence and then defend themself of the evidence made against them but then in the eyes of the DOJ it is lawful to deprive someone of that exact same right.
"Had the record actually shown that people were using the links, the outcome would likely have been different. So keep dreaming of there being no liability for people that knowingly provide links to infringing works."
The outcome may likely have been different if the record actually shown that people were using the links. The record didn't actually show that people were using the links and until then and shown otherwise the verdict by this judge stands. It will have to be proved that people were using the links and that is something that the plantiff will have to prove if they still wish to continue or bring a case against the defendant.
If the appeal by the Crown Court regarding the illegality of the warrants, searches and the cloning of the hard drives and taking cloning to the US is lost and the cloning data is not returned back from the US then the court should dismiss the extradition case on the grounds that the US has refused to comply with the court.
There are other cyberlockers in the world which have infringement on them who are not based on US soil who use servers in the US and charge people etc. to use the service and these cyberlockers have not had the servers terminated and equipment seized etc. and had assets frozen etc. So why are these cyberlockers allowed to continue to operate despite having infringement on the servers and charging people etc. If the US does have jurisdiction to shut down a foreign company that is not based on US soil but simply uses the servers hosted in the US then why haven't they shut down these other cyberlockers and frozen their assets etc?
It seems that the US is a law to themselves in that they can't play by the rules either considering that the NZ Judge has ruled that the search warrants obtained or given to search Dotcoms home were Illegal because they were too broad and that the seizing and taking away of equipment etc. from the home was also Illegal and that transfering the data from the hard drives and sending the data to the US was also Illegal. If the appeal by the US with regards to the search warrant and search etc. is not overturned and still stands as it is now then any evidence obtained from the hard drives from the search and seizure of Dotcoms home cannot therefore be used as evidence.