Um, until Kim Dotcom has been found guilty of these crimes, according to the US Justice system, he is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
Perhaps you should remember this. The DOJ is now trying to prevent Mr. Dotcom from successfully defending himself in court.
If the DOJ was certain of his guilt, they would not be doing everything in their power to prevent him from defending himself. The reality is, in their desire to bring him to "justice", they have made alot of errors. Errors that they know will be used by Dotcom's defense to very possibly acquit him of the charges.
So now they are trying to prevent Dotcom from successfully mounting that defense by pulling his legal representation out from under him, by preventing him from being able to pay them.
Look, it doesn't matter if Dotcom is guilty or innocent of the "Criminal Copyright Infringement" charges leveled against him. That has not been determined by the courts yet. However, the DOJ is abusing the system, potentially BREAKING THE LAWS THEMSELVES. And in this case, unlike Dotcom's, the DOJ is actually stealing.
Whatever you think Dotcom did, he is NOT being charged with theft. To accuse him of stealing is wrong. Even the DOJ isn't saying he stole something. He isn't being charged with theft. He is being charged with Copyright Infringement. Regardless of what the media industries tell you, Copyright Infringement IS NOT theft.
No, it is not legal, but it is not theft either. Just like murder isn't theft, arson isn't fraud, or assault isn't human trafficking. Just because he may be doing something illegal, doesn't mean that that something is something else.
Anyone who says Dotcom has been stealing is nothing more than a shill, who refuses to think for themselves. He is being charged with Criminal Copyright Infringement, and has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY YET!!!!
So, the answer is, fight back with their own laws.
What you need:
1. Find every Irish IP rights organization. 2. Get two buddies.
Now, you and your two buddies all file copyright infringement claims against the rights organizations.
Sure, the organizations can get the courts to overturn it, but how long will they be without internet? Yep, accuse the rights organizations of copyright infringement and get THEM disconnected from the Internet.
Can't find the link now, but yes, everything here is available to re-post. I don't remember how exactly Techdirt got around the whole "you can't actually put something in the public domain". It may be under a Creative Commons licence or something.
(a) (1) A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.
Is the relevent text. It COULD seem to apply to NDA's, but there may be a techincal loophole in there somewhere. I am not good enough at legalese to know it though.
Police officers like this need to be sent to various PD's across the country (I am Canadian) and teach others how to deal with cameras in public.
This is an officer who kept his cool throughout, and did his job properly. Like you, Tim, I tend to rail on bad police officers, and live in an area where we have had several incidents in the past few years. That said, most police officers are hard-working and good, honest people who (I hope) would react the same way this officer did.
Well done Officer Morelli. Keep up the good work, we appreciate officers like you. You are the kind of police officer that we want to keep us safe!!
"No person covered by this order shall make any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record, that could interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice Defendant, the Government, or the administration of justice.... "
This is a court statement that Television, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, AND Internet (including, but not limited to bloggers) are all media (by the words or other media, suggesting that all the previous are part of media). Maybe this will finally put to rest statements like "Bloggers are not journalists". Since this is an official court stance, it can be called into other court cases as being "on the record". Perhaps Senator Feinstein needs to expand her Shield law (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130807/13153224102/sen-feinstein-during-shield-law-debate-real-j ournalists-draw-salaries.shtml) to include all of the above. Otherwise, the courts need to drop Internet (including but not limited to bloggers) from their order.
You can't have it both ways. Either bloggers are journalists or they are not. You can't have them be journalists when it suits your purpose, but when it doesn't suit your purpose, suddenly they aren't.
"Today, there is the latest hearing in his case, in which the US government is asking the court to issue a gag order barring both Brown and his lawyer from "making any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, Internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record.""
This is a very interesting statement. When the government want to decide if a person is a journalist, they include internet (including but not limited to bloggers) as media when it suits them, but say "you are only a journalist if you get a paycheck" other times.
If the government keeps speaking out of both sides of their mouth, it's going to choke.