>>We have repeatedly requested that Mr. Vickery permanently delete any and all copies of [...].
Or, in other words, we have made sure that IF the appropriate authorities finally pull the finger out of their ass and start investigating who else may have downloaded private data, they will find no evidence at all.
Why the FBI needs to read the phone data in the first place? It is too late to prevent the crime, the perps are dead - no evidence needed for convictions-, and the FBI itself has concluded that "They were not directed by [foreign terrorist] groups and were not part of any terrorist cell or network"" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack)
Comcast are collecting a 'Netflix-Tax' already, from consumers who voluntarily pay for a faster internet to watch Netflix in the best possible quality. If it weren't for Netflix and other video services, who would need a fast internet at the rates Comcast charges? People would pay for the cheapest line available and still see their emails coming in fast enough.
And with T-Mobile now effectively removing data caps for bandwidth-guzzling video services on mobile connections, it is difficult to see a technical justification for data caps on fixed-line services at all.
Is there any particular reason Curt Beck is not in prison for obstruction of justice? As city attorney in charge of this case, it would have been his responsibility to ensure the appropriate steps are taken to prevent emails from being deleted. One would think his responsibility would have securing a backup of the files in question in his safe, and/or locking away the entire computer the minute the court ordered the emails to be secured.
Quality reduction and price hikes - not the first dying industry wheeling in the accountants to rescue the bottom line, won't be the last either. Don't think the approach has saved a company that missed the train when the business model started to become obsolete, though.
The scary part is that these regulations make IP in any form obsolete - simply suing competitors based on ALLEGED infringement will drain all the cash from anybody but the largest multinationals. Just the threat of legal action will be enough to extort protection money or lopsided agreements.
How much money did he launder, then? The only number the DOJ throws around are the $ 500 m Hollywood MIGHT have made if all the movies that have allegedly been shared on Megaupload had been purchased at Hollywood's RRP.
If the case is about Megaupload subscriber fees, more precisely the fraction of those fees that may relate to subscribers sharing content without authorisation, the case shrinks to a few million at most. Hardly worth the effort the US and NZ governments and their law enforcement agencies put into it.
More important - if the case is about money laundering, why does the DOJ discuss allegations of file sharing instead of presenting their evidence of file sharing? And what is the MAFIAs role in the money laundering case? Expert witness?
The DOJ and the US government are showing a lot of creativity here to crucify someone who, technically, hasn't really broken a law.
If they were to bring the same eagerness to prosecuting those responsible for some of the excesses in the war on terror, in police brutality and asset forfeiture, they could really make the world a better place.
Re: Replies to killing access on accusations & copyright math
1. While there are a plenty of examples of wrongful accusations, has anybody actually been sanctioned in any meaningful way for wrongful accusations? One example where someone was accused wrongfully and stood up was Dotcomm's promotion video on Youtube a few years back. MAFIAA did not like and fired DMCA notices on all channels, Dotcomm objected, and we all know what happened next. To Dotcomm, that is, not the MAFIAA.
2. The DMCA was passed back in the nineties, and the $160 K seemed an appropriate compensation when a song or a movie was placed on internet FOR THE FIRST TIME. They were meant to reflect the damage a publisher incurred from this first infringement, the damage caused by enabling thousands, even millions of copies. These days, many copies appear on the internet at roughly the same time, and those accused may have shared a handful of copies at best (torrent upload rates are a fraction of download rates, even if someone seeds for a while, it is rare for ratios to reach double, let alone triple digits.). Ever heard of someone being charged $160000 for shoplifting a piece of chewing gum, as punitive damages? What is worse is the MAFIAAs new (?) approach of double charging: They go after the pirates, the hosters, now ISPs, and want to charge each of them $160 K. That is indeed a lot of money for virtual loss of a few cents profit they may loose if someone downloads a copy without paying.
The US justices don't seem to have arrived in the electronic age yet, being trapped in a world of memos printed on ivory paper that are walked around the building by someone called a "chambers aide." Internet down for a few days? Won't even notice it.