[Megaupload] has constitutional rights to due process and to the advice of counsel. Yet, if the Government is to have its way in this case, the only lawyers before the Court will be those representing the Government. If the Government is to have its way, the only evidence available to the Court would be that cherry-picked by the Government, for the Government, from the universe of relevant servers slated to be wiped. If the Government is to have its way, in sum, Megaupload will never get its day in Court and the case will effectively be over before it has even begun. Megaupload's fate will have been sealed by virtue of an indictment and corresponding asset freeze executed without the benefit of any adversarial proceeding or opportunity to be heard. Megaupload's constitutional rights to contest the charges against it in a fair proceeding would be rendered worse than nugatory; they would be transformed into empty promises.

Scathingly awesome.

We say you're guilty citizen and we damn well intend to make sure you stay that way.

This is classic crime control. Make sure you get someone thrown in jail to make an example out of, and make damn sure you win the case.

Actual crimes are not necessary to be committed.

Weaver95: everyone knows that in the US system of justice you are guilty until proven innocent...and even then we've got our doubts.

We've nicely morphed into a Cardassian justice system.

All in the name of stopping crime, thanks to the GOP. This all traces back to find more acceptable ways to demand minorities stay in their place and enforced by conservative tendencies.

Weaver95: GAT_00: Weaver95: everyone knows that in the US system of justice you are guilty until proven innocent...and even then we've got our doubts.

We've nicely morphed into a Cardassian justice system.

All in the name of stopping crime, thanks to the GOP. This all traces back to find more acceptable ways to demand minorities stay in their place and enforced by conservative tendencies.

well in this case, I think it's less about 'stopping crime' and more about protecting the obsolete business model of US media conglomerates.

I still say that if Cuba really wanted to stick it to the US, they'd open up their country as a safe harbor for online piracy. you pay server fees and Cuba promises to say 'f*ck you' to any US Dept of Justice warrants that come their way.

Yeah but those companies own the government. Same difference.

But hey, that's a good thing, right? Regulations are bad, and so is restricting corporations.

Don't white-knight this guy. He is a thief. He is a pirate. He is a dirtbag.

foo monkey: Don't white-knight this guy. He is a thief. He is a pirate. He is a dirtbag.

In other news, it's a good thing to deprive people of legal rights as long as you don't like them.

ArkAngel: choo:
Now can someone explain what the government did to all the legal content that legitimate users had on their servers?

They did nothing. They are allowing it to be deleted by the server companies because now MegaUpload can't pay for it with frozen assets.

GAT_00: Weaver95: everyone knows that in the US system of justice you are guilty until proven innocent...and even then we've got our doubts.

We've nicely morphed into a Cardassian justice system.

Technically, there is no "proven innocent" in the Cardassian system. There is only guilty. Even during O'Brien's trial during "Tribunal," the verdict was guilty, but it was set aside.

And do you think there could be an innocent verdict here?

Holder and 0bama are completely out of control.
Are they in the back pocket of the RIAA?

choo: Guilty until proven guilty!

Now can someone explain what the government did to all the legal content that legitimate users had on their servers?

It's still there, for the moment - you can't access it, but they haven't wiped it yet.

In addition to the crap quoted in the Weeners, the assholes at DOJ are desperately attempting to destroy any exculpatory evidence. If there was any remnant of justice in the American legal system, the RIAA/MPAA and the entire DOJ would be spending the next 500 years in an Alabama State prison in the general population.

GAT_00: We say you're guilty citizen and we damn well intend to make sure you stay that way.

This is classic crime control. Make sure you get someone thrown in jail to make an example out of, and make damn sure you win the case.

Actual crimes are not necessary to be committed.

He's not a US citizen...

timujin: foo monkey: Don't white-knight this guy. He is a thief. He is a pirate. He is a dirtbag.

I don't recall, what did he steal?

not following the case?

he enabled people to benefit from media that they didn't pay for.

typical entitlement BS attitude "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, but I am willing to get it for free and benefit from it".

Trolljegeren: choo: Guilty until proven guilty!

Now can someone explain what the government did to all the legal content that legitimate users had on their servers?

It's still there, for the moment - you can't access it, but they haven't wiped it yet.

In addition to the crap quoted in the Weeners, the assholes at DOJ are desperately attempting to destroy any exculpatory evidence. If there was any remnant of justice in the American legal system, the RIAA/MPAA and the entire DOJ would be spending the next 500 years in an Alabama State prison in the general population.

Filter pwned

In addition to the crap quoted in the [post before the second post]

Sounds like the prosecution is throwing all possible objections at the wall and seeing what shiat sticks, just like in any lawsuit or criminal case. It's not like the judge has allowed any of this stuff (yet).

Marcus Aurelius: It's bad enough they plucked this guy from halfway around the world and claim it's US jurisdiction because of the .com designation, but do they have to double down by going all kangaroo court?

Nice example we're setting for the rest of the world.

This is the nature of "Justice" in the US these days. I'd imagine one of the reasons they don't want to release the funds is because the agency that seized them has either already spent much of them or already loaned against them. He writes more on issues regarding reporters, politicians, and foreigners, but Glenn Greenwald has been covering these issues pretty extensively for years now.

They have given Kim a perfect excuse of "they won't give me a fair trial" in order to fight extradition.

Such an open and shut case, it's like they are trying to lose.

downstairs: Yeah it is. Have you never watched a DVD before? The FBI warning at the beginning spells out that you can go to jail for copyright infringement. Its on every mass-produced DVD. Right at the beginning.

And that warning is bullshiat. If you copy the content for commercial gain, it is criminal. Such as people selling ripped DVDs on the street corner. If you copy it for personal reasons it's not criminal, and may not even be an actionable civil offense under certain fair-use pretexts.

Regardless, the plaintiff here still has to prove this company made this money illegally. The "we say it is, so it is" argument is bullshiat in a court.

Sounds like a slam dunk case.

Marcus Aurelius: It's bad enough they plucked this guy from halfway around the world and claim it's US jurisdiction because of the .com designation, but do they have to double down by going all kangaroo court?

Nice example we're setting for the rest of the world.

Not only that, the raid was illegal (new window)

Weaver95: Zombie Jesus:
In this case that seems to be what they are doing. They are claiming it is all proceeds of a crime, despite not having proven in a court of law a crime has been committed..

And that's the kicker - this ISN'T a crime. sure, it might be copyright infringement...but that's not covered under the criminal code. that's a civil matter. i'm still unclear why or even how the SWAT team got involved in a civil case in the first place.

All it takes is for someone to give the order. Whether the order itself is strictly legal or not is currently irrelevant given the SC's "qualified" immunity juris prudence. No one who gives such an order will ever be punished, even if they are ever actually known, which they probably won't be because if Dotcom's lawyers try to find out the gov will claim "state secret" and the courts will go along with it. Present-day US elites, whether in the private or public sphere, are a largely lawless bunch. Regardless of how the case turns out, I'd be very surprised if MegaUpload and Mr. Dotcom ever see a dime of that money again.

tenpoundsofcheese: not following the case?

he enabled people to benefit from media that they didn't pay for.

Even if true, this is not "theft."
He didn't steal anything. He did not deprive goods from any legitimate owners. Nor did he enable people to deprive goods from the owners.

Copying something without permission is copyright infringement. Stop trying to change definitions to make it sound worse. This has always been the disingenuous argument that the big media companies try to use. It's just as stupid no matter how many of you parrot it.

My client is Kim Dotcom's lead lawyer, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/Dotcom's, not MegaUpload's

Marcus Aurelius: It's bad enough they plucked this guy from halfway around the world and claim it's US jurisdiction because of the .com designation, but do they have to double down by going all kangaroo court?

Nice example we're setting for the rest of the world.

Sounds like the government has a lot riding on this. If he's found not guilty by the court, it could be a serious can of worms opened. So, of course they're going to stack the deck.

downstairs: Oh, I'm on your side most likely (I haven't followed every detail of this case). I was just stating the fact that copyright infringement CAN be illegal in certain cases. The person I was replying to made the blanket statement (seemingly) saying it can never be.

Gotcha, I agree. There are many cases where it can be a criminal offense.
This particular case might help define this delineation even further.

ReverendJasen: Copying something without permission is copyright infringement. Stop trying to change definitions to make it sound worse. This has always been the disingenuous argument that the big media companies try to use. It's just as stupid no matter how many of you parrot it.

Hell, there was even a thread about a judge making that point very clear. (new window)