FARK.com: (7142878) Megaupload founder: Destroying our entire business before taking us to court probably wasn't legal

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.

		Megaupload founder: Destroying our entire business before taking us to court probably wasn't legal (extratorrent.com)		100
		More: Interesting, Kim Dotcom, courts

• • •

7944 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Jun 2012 at 12:13 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7142878

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

100 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Siciro		2012-06-04 12:18:14 PM

Poor megaupload.

cenobyte40k		2012-06-04 12:18:38 PM

I really hope he wins this, due process is important and is violated all the time.

kbronsito		2012-06-04 12:21:00 PM

So I can keep selling coke while I wait for my trial?

TyrantII		2012-06-04 12:26:07 PM

Yeah smashing windows and merchandise, before moving on to bones, is usually reserved for non-payment to the mob for protection. Is that really the FBI/MPAA's model now?

zarberg		2012-06-04 12:26:26 PM

kbronsito: So I can keep selling coke while I wait for my trial?

Of course you can, you're just running the risk of getting arrested again. Also, selling coke is without a doubt illegal, giving people a place where they can do lots of things - just one of which is post illegal files - has not really been proven illegal.

xanadian		2012-06-04 12:29:08 PM

Yeah, keep dreaming.

LasersHurt		2012-06-04 12:29:35 PM

kbronsito: So I can keep selling coke while I wait for my trial?

The company sold legitimate, legal upload services. More like selling baked good while waiting for your coke trial.

xanadian		2012-06-04 12:29:51 PM

TyrantII: Is that really the FBI/MPAA's model now?

My grandfather had always claimed the RIAA was run by the mob. Not sure where he got his "info" from...

piercedgeek		2012-06-04 12:32:17 PM

kbronsito: So I can keep selling coke while I wait for my trial?

Were you selling the coke out of your home, or business? If so, having people come in to your home/business, confiscate all money and belongings without any sort of papers being served, you'd probably have a pretty strong case against them, coke dealing aside.
Proper procedure must be followed. Unless you're a terrorist, then you go to jail forever.

Strategeryz0r		2012-06-04 12:34:51 PM

xanadian: TyrantII: Is that really the FBI/MPAA's model now?

My grandfather had always claimed the RIAA was run by the mob. Not sure where he got his "info" from...

The way they act I wouldn't be surprised to find out the RIAA was founded by John Gotti. Well.... Except for the fact that mob seems to grasp that they need to update their business as technology, police tactics, and time progresses. The RIAA is firmly trapped in the stone age.

So I guess putting the RIAA on the same level as the mob is being a bit too generous. Perhaps we should figure out who the lowest class of criminal truly is, and compare the RIAA to that...

Heron		2012-06-04 12:41:21 PM

Strategeryz0r: xanadian: TyrantII: Is that really the FBI/MPAA's model now?

My grandfather had always claimed the RIAA was run by the mob. Not sure where he got his "info" from...

The way they act I wouldn't be surprised to find out the RIAA was founded by John Gotti. Well.... Except for the fact that mob seems to grasp that they need to update their business as technology, police tactics, and time progresses. The RIAA is firmly trapped in the stone age.

So I guess putting the RIAA on the same level as the mob is being a bit too generous. Perhaps we should figure out who the lowest class of criminal truly is, and compare the RIAA to that...

We just need to think more internationally. The Sicilian mob was pretty much dismantled in the early 00's due in part to their inability to change with the times.

Theaetetus		2012-06-04 12:47:58 PM

cenobyte40k: I really hope he it wins this, due process is important and is violated all the time.

Interestingly, this is a motion on behalf of the company Megaupload, and not Dotcom. Even if the charges are dismissed with respect to Megaupload, he is still on the hook.

Basically, the issue stems from the rule that requires service on a corporation to be mailed to its last known address in the U.S... but Megaupload never had an address here, so it's impossible for the government to comply with that rule.

imontheinternet		2012-06-04 12:50:57 PM

If the Executive Branch does it, it's legal.

Of course, I suppose there's an outside shot that the case went to a judge who actually cares about the rule of law. We'll see.

HempHead		2012-06-04 01:02:06 PM

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

--Jack Valenti, President MPAA

wild9		2012-06-04 01:06:37 PM

I thought the US government was immune to being sued....

Maybe I am wrong though, I probably am.

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-06-04 01:11:26 PM

imontheinternet: [ph.cdn.photos.upi.com image 300x294]

If the Executive Branch does it, it's legal.

Of course, I suppose there's an outside shot that the case went to a judge who actually cares about the rule of law. We'll see.

That pic of Nixon is cool, but Obama is measurably to the right of Nixon.

Theaetetus		2012-06-04 01:13:45 PM

wild9: I thought the US government was immune to being sued....

Maybe I am wrong though, I probably am.

42 USC 1983 is a law the government passed giving people permission to sue it for civil rights violations. Absent that law, you'd be right. Basically, it waived sovereign immunity.

KellyX		2012-06-04 01:23:29 PM

Theaetetus: wild9: I thought the US government was immune to being sued....

Maybe I am wrong though, I probably am.

42 USC 1983 is a law the government passed giving people permission to sue it for civil rights violations. Absent that law, you'd be right. Basically, it waived sovereign immunity.

From what I recall, you can petition to sue the Government, they have to decide to if your suit has merit and allow you to sue them.

/really not sure how that makes sense, but that's how it was explained to me

kingoomieiii		2012-06-04 01:24:28 PM

At the behest of the RIAA, the federal government played Team America, World Police and shut down an international company with no US office. Now they're bringing them to court in the US. After seizing all of their funds and holding all of their property, classified as evidence, and they are hell-bent on allowing it to be destroyed before the trial.

If you're not worried about the ramifications of this, I daresay you're not paying attention.

Dreaded_South		2012-06-04 01:24:35 PM

kbronsito: So I can keep selling coke while I wait for my trial?

www.cybergorillas.com

homarjr		2012-06-04 01:32:10 PM

imontheinternet: If the Executive Branch does it, it's legal.

I finally got around to watching Frost-Nixon this weekend. I just want to say how amazing that movie was.

vpb		2012-06-04 01:34:52 PM

Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

LowbrowDeluxe		2012-06-04 01:41:06 PM

kingoomieiii: At the behest of the RIAA, the federal government played Team America, World Police and shut down an international company with no US office. Now they're bringing them to court in the US. After seizing all of their funds and holding all of their property, classified as evidence, and they are hell-bent on allowing it to be destroyed before the trial.

If you're not worried about the ramifications of this, I daresay you're not paying attention.

bears.jpg
bears.jpg
bears.jpg

wild9		2012-06-04 01:45:19 PM

KellyX: Theaetetus: wild9: I thought the US government was immune to being sued....

Maybe I am wrong though, I probably am.

42 USC 1983 is a law the government passed giving people permission to sue it for civil rights violations. Absent that law, you'd be right. Basically, it waived sovereign immunity.

From what I recall, you can petition to sue the Government, they have to decide to if your suit has merit and allow you to sue them.

/really not sure how that makes sense, but that's how it was explained to me

Yeah there are some TF's here that are actual lawyers. It would be nice if they happen to see this thread and their input on it. I only brought it up because it was mentioned in the article.

MagSeven		2012-06-04 01:50:23 PM

vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

He's not in jail yet, is he?

Dr Dreidel		2012-06-04 01:50:54 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-04 01:55:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal courts of law.

Aren't MegaUpload and Dotcom charged with criminal copyright infringement?

Dr Dreidel		2012-06-04 02:07:03 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dr Dreidel: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal courts of law.

Aren't MegaUpload and Dotcom charged with criminal copyright infringement?

It appears so. I need to learn the difference between memory and reality.

// and then I will snark that Zimmerman was duly charged with a crime by a court before being detained; OBL was already a wanted man by time the USG destroyed WTC 7
// MAXIMUM TROLLING

Deneb81		2012-06-04 02:07:26 PM

Dr Dreidel: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal courts of law.

Copy right infrigement can be a criminal offense, not just civil.

ZAZ		2012-06-04 02:07:35 PM

We had a torrentfreak article last week. Is there anything new in this one?

Deneb81		2012-06-04 02:25:39 PM

Dr Dreidel: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dr Dreidel: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal courts of law.

Aren't MegaUpload and Dotcom charged with criminal copyright infringement?

It appears so. I need to learn the difference between memory and reality.

// and then I will snark that Zimmerman was duly charged with a crime by a court before being detained; OBL was already a wanted man by time the USG destroyed WTC 7
// MAXIMUM TROLLING

There may be some question as to it's application/validity, but the assets were seized after a warrant was obtained...

It's really more akin to running a sleazy by the hour motel, and cutting a deal with the hookers and crack dealers for a cut of sales at your place. At a certain point, you may be targeted as a slice of the criminal element you're providing a place for. Depends on how far down the rabbit hole you go...

Emposter		2012-06-04 02:26:47 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: kingoomieiii: At the behest of the RIAA, the federal government played Team America, World Police and shut down an international company with no US office. Now they're bringing them to court in the US. After seizing all of their funds and holding all of their property, classified as evidence, and they are hell-bent on allowing it to be destroyed before the trial.

If you're not worried about the ramifications of this, I daresay you're not paying attention.

bears.jpg
bears.jpg
bears.jpg

Dr Dreidel		2012-06-04 02:34:36 PM

Deneb81: It's really more akin to running a sleazy by the hour motel, and ~~cutting a deal with~~ not shooing away the hookers and crack dealers ~~for a cut of sales at your place~~. At a certain point, you may be targeted as a slice of the criminal element you're providing a place for. Depends on how far down the rabbit hole you go...

As is my understanding (and we've seen how good that is), MU wasn't offering pirates a seat at the table, they just weren't aggressively booting pirates. Or weren't doing it as aggressively as RIAA liked.

Unless there's some evidence that Dotcom (or some other official of MU's) reached out to specific pirates and told them that they'd always have a place to share their ill-gotten wares so long as Kim Dotcom was around protecting them, that's a hell of an allegation.

There's also the problem mentioned in TFA - if a business must be served at its last known US address in order to honor the organization's due process rights, and MU does not and never did have a US address, whence appropriate service of legal documents?

// WhEnC prosess servur
// wHenC

Theaetetus		2012-06-04 02:38:59 PM

Dr Dreidel: As is my understanding (and we've seen how good that is), MU wasn't offering pirates a seat at the table, they just weren't aggressively booting pirates. Or weren't doing it as aggressively as RIAA liked.

Unless there's some evidence that Dotcom (or some other official of MU's) reached out to specific pirates and told them that they'd always have a place to share their ill-gotten wares so long as Kim Dotcom was around protecting them, that's a hell of an allegation.

I believe that part of the allegations are that Megaupload was paying pirates who uploaded popular movies. That's a bit different than, say, YouTube not deleting files as quickly as possible.

There's also the problem mentioned in TFA - if a business must be served at its last known US address in order to honor the organization's due process rights, and MU does not and never did have a US address, whence appropriate service of legal documents?

It's an interesting one. I'm interested to see the Government's response.

/the long term response will be a change to Rule 4 to get rid of the issue

Deneb81		2012-06-04 02:58:00 PM

Dr Dreidel: Deneb81: It's really more akin to running a sleazy by the hour motel, and cutting a deal with not shooing away the hookers and crack dealers for a cut of sales at your place. At a certain point, you may be targeted as a slice of the criminal element you're providing a place for. Depends on how far down the rabbit hole you go...

As is my understanding (and we've seen how good that is), MU wasn't offering pirates a seat at the table, they just weren't aggressively booting pirates. Or weren't doing it as aggressively as RIAA liked.

Unless there's some evidence that Dotcom (or some other official of MU's) reached out to specific pirates and told them that they'd always have a place to share their ill-gotten wares so long as Kim Dotcom was around protecting them, that's a hell of an allegation.

There's also the problem mentioned in TFA - if a business must be served at its last known US address in order to honor the organization's due process rights, and MU does not and never did have a US address, whence appropriate service of legal documents?

// WhEnC prosess servur
// wHenC

We'll see on the aiding/abetting piracy thing. I haven't really spent too much time in the nitty gritty.

As for the process service issue, I'd imagine that's pretty easy. Generally, if you offer a service or goods in the US (or a state), the law (state or federal) requires you to designate an individual as a recipient for service. Failure to designate properly does not invalidate any suit or case against you. Otherwise any given foreign company couldn't be held liable for faulty products sold in the US so long as they ALSO broke the law with regards to designating a recipient.

BullBearMS		2012-06-04 03:01:02 PM

Deneb81: Dr Dreidel: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal courts of law.

Copy right infrigement can be a criminal offense, not just civil.

Not according to Copyright law as it has always existed in the United States. The copyright act, as written, describes only civil suits.

However, little things like the law and due process don't matter when you piss off the obscenely wealthy and their bought off politicians.

The jackbooted thugs will make their appearance soon after that occurs.

dl.dropbox.com

Dr Dreidel		2012-06-04 03:11:38 PM

Deneb81: As for the process service issue, I'd imagine that's pretty easy. Generally, if you offer a service or goods in the US (or a state), the law (state or federal) requires you to designate an individual as a recipient for service.

So anyone/any business that hosts a server (or pays for hosting on a server) that sends traffic to or receives traffic from the US is considered to have "offer[ed] a service or goods in the US"? Is this the US government's position?

If that's the case, let's have the government sue every ISP in the world after declaring itself a "material supporter of terrorism". After all, US-based ISPs contribute to the kiddie porn epidemic, and I'm sure that jihadi-type websites have traffic originating/termination on these fair shores. Fair's fair.

I think what we need first is some good understanding of how internet traffic is fundamentally different from other communication. If MU was always hosted offshore, and the only time MU-related traffic went domestic was when a US-based user was hitting MU's servers, RIAA should be going after users. How is this different from suing gunmakers for making guns?

Dinjiin		2012-06-04 03:16:59 PM

Theaetetus: It's an interesting one. I'm interested to see the Government's response.

Another question is regarding a company's footprint in a country when it has no registered physical address in that country. Should they be required to assign a legal proxy with a physical address, or can they go it alone? If the latter, what legal protections do they give up in the process?

dragonchild		2012-06-04 03:18:10 PM

Theaetetus: I believe that part of the allegations are that Megaupload was paying pirates who uploaded popular movies. That's a bit different than, say, YouTube not deleting files as quickly as possible.

The problem is that at the time the offices were raided, this was merely an allegation. Hell, it's still an allegation.

Not to defend Megaupload if it turns out to be true, but I think we all agree that due process is the issue here. The U.S. courts have gone way, way, WAY overboard in getting the whole charge-trial-sentence thing completely backwards.

vpb		2012-06-04 03:21:10 PM

Dr Dreidel: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal courts of law.

Well, there wouldn't be much point to that considering that this is a criminal case. I think you need to RTFA.

Dinjiin		2012-06-04 03:21:53 PM

Dr Dreidel: So anyone/any business that hosts a server (or pays for hosting on a server) that sends traffic to or receives traffic from the US is considered to have "offer[ed] a service or goods in the US"? Is this the US government's position?

It usually doesn't work that way. You have to have the server within the US for it to be under its jurisdiction. The location of the client and backhaul networks are less important. It is one reason why the US had to use roundabout methods to discourage offshore gambling, even though the clients were on US soil.

vpb		2012-06-04 03:23:51 PM

MagSeven: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

He's not in jail yet, is he?

Who Bin Laden? Zimmerman is in jail.

HempHead		2012-06-04 03:26:16 PM

Dinjiin: Dr Dreidel: So anyone/any business that hosts a server (or pays for hosting on a server) that sends traffic to or receives traffic from the US is considered to have "offer[ed] a service or goods in the US"? Is this the US government's position?

It usually doesn't work that way. You have to have the server within the US for it to be under its jurisdiction. The location of the client and backhaul networks are less important. It is one reason why the US had to use roundabout methods to discourage offshore gambling, even though the clients were on US soil.

I believe having a '.com' registered fulfills the requirement as well.

Theaetetus		2012-06-04 03:28:45 PM

dragonchild: Theaetetus: I believe that part of the allegations are that Megaupload was paying pirates who uploaded popular movies. That's a bit different than, say, YouTube not deleting files as quickly as possible.

The problem is that at the time the offices were raided, this was merely an allegation. Hell, it's still an allegation.

At the time the police do most raids, things are at the allegation stage. It's pretty odd that we'd convict someone and only then start looking for evidence, y'know.

Not to defend Megaupload if it turns out to be true, but I think we all agree that due process is the issue here. The U.S. courts have gone way, way, WAY overboard in getting the whole charge-trial-sentence thing completely backwards.

No, I disagree. Or rather, due process is the issue in this article because it involves service of a summons, but it's not the issue where you claim it is. The seizure is not "way, way, WAY overboard", and is actually pretty normal in cases involving copyright infringement (as well as trademark infringement). They're called Anton Pillar orders, after one of the early cases allowing them, and the policy behind it is that if you call the infringer up and politely ask to inspect their goods because you think they're counterfeit or otherwise infringing, they'll (i) destroy everything and (ii) disappear.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-04 03:29:37 PM

HempHead: Dinjiin: Dr Dreidel: So anyone/any business that hosts a server (or pays for hosting on a server) that sends traffic to or receives traffic from the US is considered to have "offer[ed] a service or goods in the US"? Is this the US government's position?

It usually doesn't work that way. You have to have the server within the US for it to be under its jurisdiction. The location of the client and backhaul networks are less important. It is one reason why the US had to use roundabout methods to discourage offshore gambling, even though the clients were on US soil.

I believe having a '.com' registered fulfills the requirement as well.

You don't have to select an Agent for Service of Process when you buy a domain name, at least that I am aware of. Maybe it's in the fine print that you designate the registrant?

Theaetetus		2012-06-04 03:32:06 PM

HempHead: Dinjiin: Dr Dreidel: So anyone/any business that hosts a server (or pays for hosting on a server) that sends traffic to or receives traffic from the US is considered to have "offer[ed] a service or goods in the US"? Is this the US government's position?

It usually doesn't work that way. You have to have the server within the US for it to be under its jurisdiction. The location of the client and backhaul networks are less important. It is one reason why the US had to use roundabout methods to discourage offshore gambling, even though the clients were on US soil.

I believe having a '.com' registered fulfills the requirement as well.

Also, this is somewhat moot... Megaupload was renting space on servers, I believe, in Virginia.

vpb		2012-06-04 03:34:37 PM

BullBearMS: Deneb81: Dr Dreidel: vpb: Well, why in Zimmerman in jail? He hasn't be convicted so why is the government keeping him from his community watch activities?

And why did we go after Bin Laden? He wasn't in the US so we should have just blown 9-11 off right?

I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal courts of law.

Copy right infrigement can be a criminal offense, not just civil.

Not according to Copyright law as it has always existed in the United States. The copyright act, as written, describes only civil suits.

However, little things like the law and due process don't matter when you piss off the obscenely wealthy and their bought off politicians.

The jackbooted thugs will make their appearance soon after that occurs.

[dl.dropbox.com image 640x419]

It has always existed without any changes, huh?
You might want to read up on the matter.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2012-06-04 03:35:29 PM

Theaetetus: HempHead: Dinjiin: Dr Dreidel: So anyone/any business that hosts a server (or pays for hosting on a server) that sends traffic to or receives traffic from the US is considered to have "offer[ed] a service or goods in the US"? Is this the US government's position?

It usually doesn't work that way. You have to have the server within the US for it to be under its jurisdiction. The location of the client and backhaul networks are less important. It is one reason why the US had to use roundabout methods to discourage offshore gambling, even though the clients were on US soil.

I believe having a '.com' registered fulfills the requirement as well.

Also, this is somewhat moot... Megaupload was renting space on servers, I believe, in Virginia.

Does that make Carpathia or Cogent their Agent for Service of Process in the United States?

Dr Dreidel		2012-06-04 03:35:41 PM

Theaetetus: Also, this is somewhat moot... Megaupload was renting space on servers, I believe, in Virginia.

If that's the case, it's pretty clear that MU was doing business here.