Major website shutdown by US govt without trial

[Qaanol]

We only tolerate such government-sponsored intrusions and restrictions of my rights, because the sum total effect, on balance, over long periods of time, with large numbers of ideas being created, is purported to bring about even more benefit than the harm it causes me and people like me...

This has already been shown to be patently false numerous times, as documents like the UDHR clearly do not do so solely for the reasons you cite (and the UDHR has been voted on favorably and adopted by much of the Western world).

You have provided one piece of evidence, an argument-by-authority (that’s a fallacy, remember?) citing the UDHR (which itself also makes clear that people have other rights too, rights which are obviously infringed by IP exclusivity).

Even if we grant that authors have a right to prevent others from making copies of their work—which I don’t, but for the sake of argument I will explore the possibility—even if we grant that right to authors, that in no way detracts from the point that individuals also have rights to do what they want with their own property, and to distribute information (speech) freely, and to participate in culture. So, even if we grant that “authors have the right to stop others from copying them”, then any act of exercising that right must necessarily infringe on other rights.

It presents a conflict of rights. And then it becomes a questions of how “strong” each right is, and how much “tradeoff” of rights on one side balances the other side. So, even if we grant the unsubstantiated claim you’re basing your argument on, and suppose authors have the right to stop others from copying them, we still end up at exactly the same end-point, where we seek a balance between protecting works for some duration, and making them freely accessible thereafter.

The principle differences, then, are that your position rests on a “right to deny others their own rights”, and it completely ignores net benefit to society and accelerating the march of progress in arts and innovation. You are trying to balance one so-called “right” against many obvious natural rights that it infringes, whereas I am trying to balance the benefit to society against those same obvious natural rights.

[yoni45]

You have provided one piece of evidence, an argument-by-authority (that’s a fallacy, remember?) citing the UDHR (which itself also makes clear that people have other rights too, rights which are obviously infringed by IP exclusivity).

If one piece of evidence is all I need, then I have no reason to provide more. Moreover, this has nothing to do with authority, it just proves you flat out wrong.

Your claim was that "we" (as societies) tolerate copyright and such for only one reason. Acceptance of the UDHR by the majority of the Western world, which clearly stipulated a different reason for tolerating copyright, makes you demonstrably wrong in claiming that there is only your reason for tolerating copyright.

The other points were already discussed -- there's no point rehashing that which was already responded to just a couple of posts up.

[Lucrece]

I'd hardly call agreements made by corporate sponsored politicians with no engagement with their citizens an accurate representation of what western society thinks. Nobody has bothered to ask what western society thinks in a serious manner, so let's drop claims as to who knows the will of the people best.

[Malice]

Your claim was that "we" (as societies) tolerate copyright and such for only one reason. Acceptance of the UDHR by the majority of the Western world, which clearly stipulated a different reason for tolerating copyright, makes you demonstrably wrong in claiming that there is only your reason for tolerating copyright.

A sizable amount of the world's population would appear to not tolerate copyright, or rather tolerate breaking it via piracy, format-shifting, uploading, and remixing. The fact that they take a view separate from the UDHR suggests that opinion on this issue is more nuanced than you suggest.

[yoni45]

A sizable amount of the world's population would appear to not tolerate copyright, or rather tolerate breaking it via piracy, format-shifting, uploading, and remixing. The fact that they take a view separate from the UDHR suggests that opinion on this issue is more nuanced than you suggest.

I'd hardly call agreements made by corporate sponsored politicians with no engagement with their citizens an accurate representation of what western society thinks. Nobody has bothered to ask what western society thinks in a serious manner, so let's drop claims as to who knows the will of the people best.

I guess if take 'society' rather semantically, then that holds. I guess I generally don't take the actions of the actual majority of people to be 'representative' of society, since I'm pretty sure that by that token we'd have an excellent argument for why society actually condones stealing, cheating, and doing quite a few things to get ahead in life.

But either way...

@Lucrece I'd say your contention regarding acceptance of the UDHR needs a hell of a citation
@Malice you'll find that your claim, even if true, does nothing to question the nuances that you quoted.

[Angua]

New Zealand courts rule that the seizure of property of the megaupload owner was unlawful.

I wonder what is going to follow.

[yoni45]

New Zealand courts rule that the seizure of property of the megaupload owner was unlawful.

I wonder what is going to follow.

This is interesting. From the article:

Government and police in New Zealand have admitted making "procedural errors" when they filed the paperwork.
Mr Dotcom's legal team have seized on the errors saying the initial asset grab was "unlawful" and, as a result, his property should be returned.
A hearing was scheduled after the government admitted making five separate mistakes on its first court order. During that hearing Judge Potter ruled that the original paperwork had no legal power.
Alongside documents laying bare the mistake, the New Zealand government filed a second request seeking to confiscate the assets already seized during the raid. This paperwork also sought to confiscate more assets uncovered using evidence found during the original raid.
Judge Potter granted this order temporarily and said she would soon rule whether the blunder would mean Mr Dotcom's assets would be returned to him.

I'm rather curious as to what these 'procedural errors' are, and whether they're actually substantive.

On the one hand, the judge ruled the original paperwork had "no legal power", but on the other hand it seems she did grant them a temporary order to keep the stuff and confiscate more, which seems to imply she might allow it regardless...

[Iulus Cofield]

I assume she's advertising for a bribe from the right kind of people.

[LaserGuy]

New Zealand courts rule that the seizure of property of the megaupload owner was unlawful.

I wonder what is going to follow.

Doesn't look like it will amount to much. They don't seem to be saying that the seizure of MegaUpload itself was unlawful, only the seizure of the assets of Kim Dotcom, and only, in turn, because of a procedural error.

[yoni45]

I assume she's advertising for a bribe from the right kind of people.

That's poor execution.

Release some of the assets first, and *then* advertise for a bribe... Legal officials these days...

[annarose]

I used to use MegaVideo (which is a division of MegaUpload), and other similar sites, quite a lot to stream television. I found the videos I was looking for through sites like Sidereel.com because it was virtually impossible to find them using the MegaX sites themselves since they did not promote pirated videos at all. I stream because its convenient, I can watch what I want, when I want, and because I resent paying for cable/satellite/whatever when it's primarily garbage programming and ads. I do stream shows legally when I can, however, I live in Canada, and until recently this was virtually impossible to do because the American networks block Canadian viewers out, and the Canadian networks are only now starting to make their content available online. The fact is that if I didn't "steal" these shows I wouldn't watch them at all, I would play video games or surf the web instead, and I think that the majority of people who use these kinds of sites probably have similar stories. I wonder if they took this in to account when they calculated the however many millions of dollars MegaUpload has supposedly cost these companies.
The point I'm trying to make is that technology has evolved. The internet has rendered the old broadcasting systems obsolete. But people are resistant to change, especially when their 6 and 7 figure incomes are at stake, so they have been slow to adapt. And since the networks decided not to make their content available to their online viewers, or at least didn't do it well, the black market filled the gap, as it always does.
I am talking about popular television programs owned by the big networks because I assume that these are the people who are crying about all the money they are losing. The independent artists that I know don't mind so much when people pirate their videos because it gets them more exposure, which means more money for them in the end.
This entire lawsuit seems fucked to me. I don't understand how the United States was able to arrest people in New Zealand who were working for a company in Hong Kong. I don't understand how putting these people in jail is going to fix the problem in the slightest since there are a hundred other companies doing exactly the same thing that MegaUpload was (ahemYouTubeahem...I'd like to see the day they arrest anyone from Google). And I don't understand why MegaUpload is being blamed for the loss of so much revenue when it seems to me that the loss is actually due to a poor understanding of the current market and the modern consumer.

[Sockmonkey]

IIRC the length of commercial breaks on tv have increased a minute or two in the last twenty years yes?

[Angua]

Carpathia (who apparently owns the servers that megaupload stored its data on) is attempting legal action to either be paid to keep the data, or to return it back to the original customers.

The US government and Universal have said that they won't be taking custody of the data, so hopefully that means it will get returned. Regardless, I'm glad that someone's looking after the data at the moment.

[addams]

Carpathia (who apparently owns the servers that megaupload stored its data on) is attempting legal action to either be paid to keep the data, or to return it back to the original customers.

The US government and Universal have said that they won't be taking custody of the data, so hopefully that means it will get returned. Regardless, I'm glad that someone's looking after the data at the moment.

The US is acting like a spoiled school yard Bully, again.
They caused the breach. They have responsibility. Don't they?

O.K. What happens if the data is destroyed? Would the evidence be gone?

[emceng]

Update on this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... mments-bar

Basically the host(Carpathia) is still trying to figure out what to do with the servers. And the US government now claims "oh, they may have child porn on them". Based on this article, they're making that claim with no proof. Either way, this is a mess. Everyone is losing their data, Carpathia is losing money. The only people benefitting from this are the MPAA/RIAA. Government is colluding with them, or maybe just being their normal idiotic, bullheaded, bureaucratic selves, and not letting anyone off of anything once they've been charged with a crime.

[Randomizer]

It looks like MegaUpload isn't the only site in the sights of big media.

From CNET, the MPAA wants more criminal cases brought against 'rogue' sites:
"A Paramount Pictures exec says the studios continue to make criminal referrals against cyberlocker services dedicated to enabling piracy, and he identifies the top five "rogue" sites."
Here's an article on Techdirt about the same thing.

Here's an alteration of the MPAA's poster:

Spoiler:

[Chainer]

Megaupload Trial May Never Happen, Judge Says

Spoiler:

A US judge has put a bomb under the Megaupload case by informing the FBI that a trial in the United States may never happen. The cyberlocker was never formally served with the appropriate paperwork by the US authorities, as it is impossible to serve a foreign company with criminal charges.

kim dotcomThe US Government accuses Kim Dotcom and the rest of the “Mega Conspiracy” of running a criminal operation.

Charges in the indictment include engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.

While the prosecution is hoping to have Megaupload tried in the US, breaking news suggests that this may never happen.

It turns out that the US judge handling the case has serious doubts whether it will ever go to trial due to a procedural error.

“I frankly don’t know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter,” Judge O’Grady said as reported by the NZ Herald.

Judge O’Grady informed the FBI that Megaupload was never served with criminal charges, which is a requirement to start the trial. The origin of this problem is not merely a matter of oversight. Megaupload’s lawyer Ira Rothken says that unlike people, companies can’t be served outside US jurisdiction.

“My understanding as to why they haven’t done that is because they can’t. We don’t believe Megaupload can be served in a criminal matter because it is not located within the jurisdiction of the United States,” Rothken says.

Megaupload’s lawyer adds that he doesn’t understand why the US authorities weren’t aware of this problem before. As a result Judge O’Grady noted that Megaupload is “kind of hanging out there.”

If this issue indeed prevents Megaupload from being tried in the US, it would be a blunder of epic proportions. And it is not the first “procedural” mistake either.

Last month the New Zealand High Court declared the order used to seize Dotcom’s property “null and void” after it was discovered that the police had acted under a court order that should have never been granted.

The error dates back to January when the police applied for the order granting them permission to seize Dotcom’s property. Rather than applying for an interim restraining order, the Police Commissioner applied for a foreign restraining order instead.

The exact ramifications of the failure to serve will become apparent in the near future.

Update: Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom responds, and he’s not happy.

[Iulus Cofield]

Justice!

Except that they may have ruined a perfectly legitimate foreign business because they were probably bribed or believed malicious fraud by a rival company.

So...yeah.

[Angua]

Actually, I hope that megaupload countersues for damages. It sounds like they're be well within their rights to do so.

[Iulus Cofield]

The US government can only be sued if it agrees to be sued. They'll probably want to just sweep this under the rug.

In related news, a Paramount executive released a hit list post of other file sharing sites and RapidShare was conspicuously absent. US News seems to have a lot more faith in RapidShare than any movie studio or the US government had in MegaUpload:

RapidShare's transformation from a potentially suitable service for pirates to legitimate online file locker has taken a couple of years--and plenty of copyrighted material still exists on the site, but the company says it is vigilant in taking such material down once it's discovered. About a third of its staff of 60 is dedicated to removing illegal files, RapidShare says. In 2010, the company took a huge hit in traffic after it ended its "rewards" program, which incentivized users to upload popular, and often illegal, content. Although the company has seen traffic increase by about a third since Megaupload was raided in January, Raimer says pirates hoping to switch from Megaupload aren't welcome at RapidShare.

So, in the interest of science, I went to Rapidsearch, typed in "movie", got "676,000 results" and a quick survey of the first ten pages leads me to believe that less than 1% of these results are even possibly uncopyrighted. I wonder how much it costs to bribe the MPAA and FBI.

[Technical Ben]

As long as there is 1 copyrighted piece of material, no matter who put it there ( ), the rights holders will demand absolute control of the distributes. Or so it seems. So 1% or less means nothing to them anymore.

[addams]

I assume she's advertising for a bribe from the right kind of people.

How cynacal is that?

One day she is a magistrate for a small out of the way Island of sheep herdsman and Indians and Sheephearding Indians and The Next Day, she is asked to Rule on the Legality of a case that involves the US; Arguably, the most dangerous nation in the world.

eww. Right? The poor woman.
Can she push it up to a higher court?

It is an international issue. Must all other nations act against any, but their own, at the word of the United States Government? (Where to draw that line?)

Does New Zealand have a treaty with the US that states that the US has command rights over the Island? Nah. New Zealand is still a part of the UK; Right?

Right? And; The UK is a subsidiary of the US.
The Roles flipped after WWI and II.

It goes full circle? UK law is subservient to US law?
Any UK nation assumes that subservience?

Who has the servers, now? Is it like a Cyber Library?

Love in the Library, by Jimmy Buffet. Such a sweet song. If, everything is on the internet why is Love in the Library not there?

Buffet is a prolific Romantic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZN-AOq ... playnext=0
Sorry about the link. It is everything Buffet ever did or a dead end.
He did a whole CD based on the premise that 'The World NEEDS more Fruit Cakes!'

That's where he put 'Love in the library. Maybe.

Spoiler:

What! No car for God!? Why? Is he like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Charles or the other one? Right.
Stevie Wonder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Wonder

He wanted to drive. So; He drove. Stevie Wonder had a car; He did not drive well. He needed a driver or twelve.

Sound is an important powerful mood altering substance. It is in our bodies. The ear was selected for, because, it hears danger that can not be seen.
Not everything the ear was selected for is dangerous.
That is what I get for listening to Jimmy Buffet set on Random.

Church Music. I have no idea. Church Music and Folk Music and Love Songs all shuffled together with Party Music and Hang over Music:"Head Hurts; My Feet Stink; And; I Don't Love Jesus. It's been that kind of morning it was that kind of night." The man is funny.

Can the US, just, shut down the internet? Poof. One day it works. The next day it is back to snail mail, smoke signals, patterns of flashing lights in the night sky.

Spoiler:

We call those flashing lights lighthouses. We are right on the edge of technology.
Light houses are on the edge.

Where one way of being meets another way of being. The edge of the membrane between Humans on water and Humans on land.
It is all from the Human perspective.

The whole cyber thing is new to me. I liked circuits when they were big enough to play with.
Gott'a find something big enough to play with!
Internet music is so nice. It is like a found treasure that is going away, just, as I discovered it.

[LaserGuy]

As long as there is 1 copyrighted piece of material, no matter who put it there ( ), the rights holders will demand absolute control of the distributes. Or so it seems. So 1% or less means nothing to them anymore.

I think you might want to read that again. He's saying that 99% of the search results that turned up when the word "movie" was put in were almost certainly copyrighted. Rapidshare's "no pirates" policy seems to be mostly bullshit.

I think the big question is going to be: What does all of this mean for MegaUpload? What happens to their data--is the whole thing going to end up getting dropped and the government has to return everything? I find their lawyer's comments about that the government is being a little underhanded in other ways--basically by having virtually every major music and movie label as a plaintiff or witness, the government is then trying to claim any lawyer that has previously worked for any of these companies should not be allowed to defend MegaUpload because of conflict of interest. And good luck trying to find a copyright lawyer anywhere that hasn't worked for one of these companies.

[Technical Ben]

The results from one search are not the correct way to check overall percentages. I meant, even a "best case scenario" would not please them. While it sounds like excessive copying is going on now, I still don't see much a carrier company could do to combat it.

The main problem I see is that these companies are acting as a carrier of information. I don't see anything wrong with asking them to do certain things. Just that the laws should be applied evenly. If that was so, half of Hollywood and the music biz would have to pay fines for their "borrowing" of others work.

[emceng]

The latest on this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... d-illegal/

[Роберт]

The latest on this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... d-illegal/

Interesting tidbit:

Dotcom later told the court he had no idea that the people he saw flooding into his property were police, so he fled to his home's secure room. After realizing they were cops, he says he decided to stay put rather than take the risk of popping out and perhaps getting shot.

"Not once did they say they were police," he testified. "They had civilian clothes on. The only things that I saw were flack jackets with a lot of pistols and automatic weapons."

Once they arrived at the panic room, Dotcom said, "I was punched in the face. I was kicked down on the floor. One guy was standing on my hand so my nail was ruptured and my hand was bleeding. It was quite aggressive."

In the police view, however, Dotcom was hiding from them—and had retreated to a room with a weapon "which had the appearance of a shortened shotgun." CCTV footage from the house, which might show more of what really happened, has been seized by police and not yet returned.

His word against theirs, and they took the tapes and have STILL not returned them.

But honestly, even though Kim Dotcom is ridiculous and a type of evil, the NZ cops messed this one up so badly it's not even funny. Good for the judge.

[PeteP]

The appearance of a shortened shotgun? They presumably have said weapon now, so why not say what it was exactly?

[Роберт]

The appearance of a shortened shotgun? They presumably have said weapon now, so why not say what it was exactly?

"It looked like he had something that looked illegal, so we punched him in the face." Makes sense, right?

[emceng]

Story update:
New Zealand PM apologises to Kim Dotcom over spying 'error'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... kim-dotcom

Spoiler:

New Zealand PM apologises to Kim Dotcom over spying 'error'


New Zealand's prime minister, John Key, apologises to Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, who was illegally spied upon by the country's intelligence officials Link to this video
New Zealand's spy agency illegally carried out surveillance on Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, an official report shows, prompting an apology from the prime minister and dealing a possible blow to US efforts to extradite him.

Washington wants the 38-year-old German national, also known as Kim Schmitz, to be sent to the US to face charges of internet piracy and breaking copyright laws.

The report, published on Thursday by the Inspector-General of Intelligence, the watchdog for New Zealand spy agencies, found the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) had spied on Dotcom, despite a law prohibiting it from snooping on New Zealand citizens and residents. The flamboyant Dotcom attained New Zealand permanent resident status in 2010.

The prime minister, John Key, said: "It is the GCSB's responsibility to act within the law, and it is hugely disappointing that in this case its actions fell outside the law", adding the incident was caused by "basic errors".

He apologised to Dotcom and all New Zealanders, saying they were entitled to be protected by the law but it had failed them.

New Zealand police asked the GCSB to keep track of Dotcom and his colleagues before a raid in late January on his rented country estate near Auckland, in which computers and hard drives, artwork, and cars were confiscated.

The illegal surveillance may deal another blow to the US extradition case after a New Zealand court ruled in June that search warrants used in the raid on Dotcom's home were illegal.

The raid followed a request by the FBI for the arrest of Dotcom for leading a group that netted $175m (£108m) since 2005 by allegedly copying and distributing music, films and other copyrighted content without authorisation.

Dotcom maintains that the Megaupload site was merely an online storage facility, and has accused Hollywood of lobbying the US government to prosecute him.

American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based.

The extradition hearing has been delayed until March.

I absolutely love this part:

American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based.

[Роберт]

American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based.

So, basically, America is trying to screw Mr. Dotcom over, due process as defined by New Zealand be hanged?

[omgryebread]

American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based.

So, basically, America is trying to screw Mr. Dotcom over, due process as defined by New Zealand be hanged?

Uh... no? America is appealing a court decision within New Zealand's judicial system. That seems exactly like due process to me.

[Роберт]

American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based.

So, basically, America is trying to screw Mr. Dotcom over, due process as defined by New Zealand be hanged?

Uh... no? America is appealing a court decision within New Zealand's judicial system. That seems exactly like due process to me.

I don't think we'd be so overt as to order his assassination, but look at how messed up the prosecution against him as been so far. Illegal searches, illegal surveillance, crazy raid.

You think suddenly the prosecution has become lawful good?

[yoni45]

The appearance of a shortened shotgun? They presumably have said weapon now, so why not say what it was exactly?

Well, to be fair, the reality wouldn't matter -- they're describing their reasoning for their actions, so what would matter is what it appeared to be (which is what would dictate whether their actions were reasonable).

[yurell]

American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based.

That part makes me extremely uncomfortable. I don't care what anyone's done, they should be allowed to see what is being used against them.