If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   In the case against MegaUpload, the government is denying the accused A. The ability to pay lawyers. B. The right to hire experienced copyright litigators. C. The right to present any evidence in its defense. D. All of the above   (arstechnica.com) divider line 24
    More: Asinine, fugitives, Kim Dotcom, expert witnesses, Google Adsense  
•       •       •

6700 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Apr 2012 at 3:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-04-16 02:19:10 PM
7 votes:

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


...and he's got rights.
2012-04-16 01:28:30 PM
4 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 12:51:43 PM
4 votes:
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.
MBK [TotalFark]
2012-04-16 01:26:27 PM
3 votes:
To play devil's advocate here...

Let's say you rob a bank. You have hundreds of thousands of dollars. You get arrested. Can you use the money you stole to retain a lawyer?

Now, I know the ideas aren't the same, but in the eye's of the government, MegaUpload was an illegal company, therefore the money they made was illegally gained.

I still think the whole thing is horseshiat.
2012-04-16 03:35:59 PM
2 votes:
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.
2012-04-16 02:16:24 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 01:34:15 PM
2 votes:
See what happens when big business owns the government?
2012-04-16 01:10:58 PM
2 votes:
everyone knows that in the US system of justice you are guilty until proven innocent...and even then we've got our doubts.
2012-04-16 01:08:34 PM
2 votes:
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.
2012-04-17 07:55:49 AM
1 votes:

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.


I think you're a bit naive if you think it's only the GOP guilty of this sort of thing.
2012-04-16 05:11:51 PM
1 votes:

turbidum: ReverendJasen: 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.

What do you mean, "if true"? Megaupload made money off of content that wasn't theirs. Heavy uploaders to the site also made money off of content that wasn't theirs (through incentives offered by Megaupload).

As much as I find some of the things the U.S. government is doing reprehensible, it's laughable to suggest that what Megaupload et al. did was anything but illegal.


Respectfully, you're not reading him properly.

You: "It's theft!"
Him: "No, it's illegal copyright infringement. 'Theft' requires tangible personal property to be involved, and the 2nd Circuit recently said that that doesn't apply to intangible intellectual property."
You: "What do you mean it's completely legal?!"

It's not legal. He's not saying it's legal. The 2nd Circuit didn't say it was legal. No one is saying it's legal. They're saying it's not "theft".
Punching a baby is not theft either, but no one is suggesting it's not illegal.
2012-04-16 03:48:15 PM
1 votes:

ReverendJasen: 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.


And now there's case law to back it up.
2012-04-16 03:39:05 PM
1 votes:

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)
2012-04-16 03:37:12 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 03:28:02 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 02:28:06 PM
1 votes:

ArkAngel: 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.

Link (new window)

US statute for criminal copyright infringement.


so basically...the US government is breaking it's own laws to go after this guy.
2012-04-16 02:25:29 PM
1 votes:

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?
2012-04-16 02:24:27 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 02:22:01 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 01:55:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 01:45:06 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: 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.


Do you blame Republicans when you wake up with a hemorrhoid on your ass?
2012-04-16 01:25:38 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-16 01:11:33 PM
1 votes:

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.


at least we're consistent.
2012-04-16 12:50:37 PM
1 votes:
Guilty until proven guilty!

Now can someone explain what the government did to all the legal content that legitimate users had on their servers?
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report