Slashdot Mirror


Judge: Megaupload, Host, DOJ Must Work Out Server Maintenance

itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will recall that Carpathia Hosting, which is hosting the frozen data of 'up to 66 million users', would like to be released from that expense. But Judge Liam O'Grady has another idea: 'Lawyers for Megaupload, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Web hosting provider Carpathia Hosting and other groups fighting over who should maintain 1,100 servers formerly used by Megaupload should sit down and work out an arrangement,' O'Grady said Friday.' Stay tuned: The lawyers are due to report back in two weeks."

28 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome! by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 2

    I can already HEAR my wallet being drained!

    1. Re:Awesome! by Weezul · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Isn't this cut and dried that the DoJ to pay for the hosting? Or maybe the servers should be handed over to megaupload in a New Zealand data center if they don't want to pay up.

      Interestingly, we've now established that most downloads from Hotfiles were open source software, certainly the DoJ claims that MegaUpload actively pursued Pirate uploads, but it's clear that MegaUpload has "significant non-infringing uses". It follows they should actually be returned to operation but still face the charges for encouraging piracy.

      In reality, the DoJ wants all those non-infringing files deleted because they'll hurt their case. The DoJ has also repeatedly tried to prevent MegaUpload from hiring good lawyers.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    2. Re:Awesome! by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

          Well....

          About the moment seized the equipment, it became their problem. As I understand it, Megaupload lost privileges to do anything. It's now evidence. They should have taken possession of it.

          But since Megaupload is contractually obliged to pay for the space and bandwidth, and the equipment is still there, they have to keep paying on the contract.

          The judge *should* have ordered that the hosting provider was either required to hold onto the equipment indefinitely, or hand it over to the DoJ. Either of those would be at the expense of the DoJ. This decision of "go work it out for yourselves" really smells like the DoJ doesn't have enough of a case for the judge to sign off on taking possession.

          The equipment must take up about 30 racks or so. That's a pretty sizable footprint in most datacenters. It seems the hosting provider is being very cooperative, and even though the "storage" cost seems high, it's about right for full racks, if they're dropped the power and network connections.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Awesome! by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand why they just can't reimburse the hosting company for the hard drives with all the data on them (so they can buy replacements and continue operating their business) and put the ones with all the data on them in storage.

      I mean, I get that we're talking about a massive amount of data here, but hard drives aren't that big. It's not like they're going to need to clear room in that warehouse where they store the Ark of the Covenant or anything.

      If that's too much work, why not just mirror the data somewhere and let the hosting company wipe the drives and got on with life?

      It just seems like these issues are trivial but the players involved are making them out to be far more complicated then it needs to be (in some cases deliberately, I'm sure). It's all a bunch of fucking ones and zeros and the people involved in the case are making it out to be a lot more than that.

    4. Re:Awesome! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The DoJ can't legally delete the non-infringing files. As long as the servers are in their possession, they really can't do anything with them except copy them or return them to their owners, and I don't know if copies of the files on the servers would be admissible in court. If they want to use the data on the servers as evidence in their trial, they may have to hold on to the servers they originally seized. But nothing prevents them from copying the files on the servers and returning those files to Carpathia.

      But that's not what Carpathia would want. To them, a lot of the value is in the hardware. They would want the original hardware back with files intact and that's not going to happen anytime soon unless either DoJ dismisses the case or MegaUpload pleads guilty. And the value of the hardware and stored files could decay to near nothing by the time a criminal case could make it through the courts. And should they get a conviction and MegaUpload appeals you can cut that almost nothing to actually nothing.

      I don't see how they are going to work this out in a way that doesn't maximally screw over non-infringing users.

    5. Re:Awesome! by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      But that's not what Carpathia would want. To them, a lot of the value is in the hardware. They would want the original hardware back with files intact and that's not going to happen anytime soon unless either DoJ dismisses the case or MegaUpload pleads guilty

      Why do you think Carpathia cares about the files?
      They care about the hardware, because it's theirs and it's costing them money without generation revenue.
      The files on the servers are Megaupload's.

    6. Re:Awesome! by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Uh, they can't allow them to continue operating because it's evidence. You can't give evidence to the accused, for obvious reasons.

    7. Re:Awesome! by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2

      Why is this even a criminal case? Shouldn't it be a civil case between the copyright holders and Megaupload?

      The DOJ shouldn't be involved at all.

      THIS IS A COLOSSAL WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS. And yes I'm saying it in all caps because it's important.

    8. Re:Awesome! by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) The DOJ is saying they're fine if it gets destroyed. That makes any argument that you can't give it to the accused pretty flagrantly specious.
      2) If the DOJ did actually want a clean copy as evidence, they can make themselves a copy and then put the original equipment back into service until the verdict comes down.

    9. Re:Awesome! by sjames · · Score: 2

      Yes, they should be allowed to continue operating unless/until found guilty in a court of law. Any particular act that was a crime has certainly stopped by now. Should the FVBI witness any particular act during that time that is a crime, they are free to say stop at that point and add it to the pile of evidence they claim to have.

    10. Re:Awesome! by mysidia · · Score: 2

      But since Megaupload is contractually obliged to pay for the space and bandwidth, and the equipment is still there, they have to keep paying on the contract.

      Well, not necessarily. They have a contractual obligation to pay for the bandwidth and hosting. The DoJ's actions have forced the hosting provider into a situation where they are no longer providing the hosting agreed upon in the contract; IOW, the government have forced the hosting provider to no longer be upholding their end of the contract.
      That means MegaUpload could start witholding payments, on the basis that their service provider isn't providing the service agreed upon.
      The hosting provider then might have recourse against MegaUpload, which might or might not be cancelled out by MegaUpload's recourse against the hosting provider.

      The DoJ is responsible for the hosting provider's non-performance, therefore, the DoJ should be liable to pay MegaUpload's recourse against the hosting provider then.

    11. Re:Awesome! by symbolset · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the government permits the defense evidence to be destroyed they may as well give up their case right now. No judge or jury is going to convict after that.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    12. Re:Awesome! by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      The problem with the "stop doing what your under scrutiny" bit is that it is effectively the same thing as a shutdown. What lawyer in their right mind is going ot advise a client to continue to do what they are currently in court for? Not to mention voluntarily stopping might be twisted into admission of guilt: "well clearly they knew what they were doing was wrong because as soon as they knew that we were watching they stopped".

      I totally agree with the continue operating until proven guilty bit but it is difficult in practice. One work around might be to give the defendant immunity from prosecution for continued offenses (not the original ones) for the duration of the trial. If you don't like what they are continuing to do then work on the due process and get a move on with the trial. If a defendant in good faith thinks what they are doing is okay and it hasn't been found to not be okay in court they should be able to continue to do it without penalty. This is copyright infringement not someone raping babies. There is plenty of time to figure it out and get a more clear judgement on what hosters are allowed to do without panicking and shutting down everyone that has data on the internet.

  2. How are other frozen assets managed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How do the courts generally manage assets frozen while being maintained by third parties?

    Surely this situation must come up in cases of, say, livestock?

    Its weird this all seems to be taking everyone by surprise.

    1. Re:How are other frozen assets managed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its "taking them by suprise" because its what theyre going for: they dont even need an extradition and conviction if they destroy megauploads business for good.

    2. Re:How are other frozen assets managed by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do the courts generally manage assets frozen while being maintained by third parties?

      Surely this situation must come up in cases of, say, livestock?

      They freeze them

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  3. Herewith my professional advice by maroberts · · Score: 2

    Why can't all the MegaUpload servers and files on it be set so that all account holders have read only access to their data?

    Problem solved.

    My invoice is in the post.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Herewith my professional advice by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The problem is no one is paying the bill racking up at the moment, so who gets to pay for the added extra cost of implementing your suggestion?

    2. Re:Herewith my professional advice by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      "The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it."

      DOJ bears the burden of proof. Legally, it must show the content is infringing, or release it. If you want to get technical, it should have had to show that any particular content was infringing BEFORE seizing it.

      Technically, DOJ is currently breaking the law, because it has "interfered with" thousands or even millions of legitimate business contracts in order to prosecute OTHER PEOPLE who might not be legitimate. The government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing that.

    3. Re:Herewith my professional advice by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

      in a perfect world, DoJ has the obligation to go through all the storage units and search for stolen property, impounding the entire contents of each unit they find stolen property in; the rest, once checked, are allowed usual access for the keyholders to remove their property but Storage-R-Us would not be allowed to take money, put anything else into storage or sign up new clients *while the investigation is ongoing*. Running cost would be met by DoJ while they carry out their investigation *only if their activity prevents Storage-R-Us from carrying on normal trading*. If, at the conclusion of the investigation and any subsequent court case, Storage-R-Us are found to be active contributory/accessory to any crime, then the DoJ would be able to claim back the running costs on top of any other costs so accrued. This would break even very large companies. If it goes the other way round (Storage-R-Us found not to be contributory) then the company would be able to claim excessive costs (ie interest on loans unpaid while accounts are frozen) from the DoJ, who of course have the financial backing of the Federal Reserve via the Treasury which equals a bottomless pit.

      Course, this isn't a perfect world, this is the Real World where Government agencies are above the Laws and Statutes they codify and apply to Everyone Else. The DoJ can do what the fuck they like, and if that means shutting down MU or Storage-R-Us because **AA has a hissy fit at the possibility that they might be enabling civil infringement, then tough titties.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    4. Re:Herewith my professional advice by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      "The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it."

      DOJ bears the burden of proof. Legally, it must show the content is infringing, or release it. If you want to get technical, it should have had to show that any particular content was infringing BEFORE seizing it.

      Technically, DOJ is currently breaking the law, because it has "interfered with" thousands or even millions of legitimate business contracts in order to prosecute OTHER PEOPLE who might not be legitimate. The government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing that.

      "The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it."

      DOJ bears the burden of proof. Legally, it must show the content is infringing, or release it. If you want to get technical, it should have had to show that any particular content was infringing BEFORE seizing it.

      Technically, DOJ is currently breaking the law, because it has "interfered with" thousands or even millions of legitimate business contracts in order to prosecute OTHER PEOPLE who might not be legitimate. The government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing that.

      You're mistaken. The DoJ can seize anything that's named on their warrant. The warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that the persons or things seized were involved in a crime. They don't have to prove anything in the sense you're implying.

      So if the warrant (which I have not seen) named Carpathia Hosting's servers then Carpathia Hosting's servers are the things to be seized. In this case, DoJ "seized" them by freezing access to them.

      I'm not insensitive to the plight of those whose legitimate business may have been harmed by the seizure. I wish that DoJ had used a finer hand in their seizure and found a way to take control only of the files that they allege are infringing and left the rest alone. Maybe they will, but based on today's news it looks like the finger pointing is only escalating.

      As I pointed out in this thread though, their hands could be tied by the rules of evidence in criminal court. It may be that to allow less intrusive seizures in the future, laws may have to be modified to allow the government to take and use copies of original evidence in court.

    5. Re:Herewith my professional advice by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      That's a bad analogy, as are most analogies between physical property and computer files.

      The allegedly infringing files are on the same hard drives on the same servers as the completely legitimate files. The DoJ seized the servers as the easiest way to seize the MegaUpload files before MegaUpload could delete them. MegaUpload won't tell them which accounts might have infringing files in them because if they did, they would be admitting to complicity in the crime of making illegal copies of those files. They can only claim ignorance of specific claims of piracy if they never claim to know who might have illegally uploaded data. Heck, they probably don't even KNOW which users were using their service for completely legal purposes and who uploaded pirated files. Why and how would they know that? Carpathia probably doesn't even have the access information. They're caught between MegaUpload and the DoJ, along with any law-abiding MegaUpload users.

      Those who have uploaded data to MegaUpload and depended on having access to it are fools. Sucks to be them, but you won't find me uploading the only copies of any data I have to MegaUpload or any other hosting service.

  4. Hosting contracts should change. by couchslug · · Score: 2

    Hosting providers should have a "kill switch" such that in the event of litigation, all hard drives will be physically removed, boxed, and turned over to law enforcement, all contracts terminate instantly, and if anyone wants their data back they can go fight DOJ etc.

    Anyone who doesn't back up their data deserves to suffer for being stupid. Yes, really. Some things will never not be a bad idea, and no matter how much people bitterly resent backing up their work there is every reason to do it and no logical one not to.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  5. what the hell by nimbius · · Score: 2

    is "frozen" data? this seems like a pretty simple fucking solution. turn the servers back on for 120 days and set the fstab to read-only. Turn them back off later and continue the scapegoating process of destroying one mans free time and personal fortune in the pursuit of "copyright enforcement"

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  6. Japanese Inspection by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You ever heard of a “Japanese Inspection?” Japanese Inspection, you see, when the Japs take in a load of lettuce they’re not sure they wanna let in the country, why they’ll just let it sit there on the dock ’til they get good and ready to look at, But then of course, it’s all gone rotten ain’t nothing left to inspect. You see, lettuce is a perishable item

    (from "Days of Thunder")

    From day 1, the behaviour of the authorities on this case has stunk. The first thing that struck me about their arrest of Kim Dotcom was that they turned up at his mansion with a trailer, and hauled away his pink Cadillac right there on the spot - confiscating his property before he'd even had a trial.

    If they are evidence, they go into the custody of the authorities. They don't sit there, rotting away the funds of the company, unless of course, that's the intention.

  7. collateral damage by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    It has, even with more closely related assets.

    In RIM vs. NTP, the court toyed with the idea of shutting down the BlackBerry network, cutting off thousands of BlackBerry users. Some of those users were government workers and Congresspersons. The court decided not to order a shutdown because it would be "unworkable" to exclude customers in the government from the shutdown. More like, the court realized in this case their power was unworkable, and inconveniencing Congress would be about the quickest way to lose that power. They didn't seem much concerned with the damage such an action would do to innocent 3rd parties.

    In Verizon vs Vonage, the court actually went beyond making threats. The judge threatened to shut Vonage down, but didn't do it. However, Vonage was actually ordered not sign up new customers.

    SCO took matters even further on their own. They used the threat of legal action to push innocent 3rd parties into paying a "license fee" to use Linux. They had the nerve to demand that all Linux users pay this fee. Never mind they hadn't won their case yet. Never mind that even in the event of a win, the losers should be paying, not the public. The courts' incredible powers were being used by a litigant to scare and blackmail the public.

    The court did shut down Napster. Wantonly and irreparably destroyed a service millions of people had been using, describing Napster as a "monster", and ultimately for naught as other services quickly filled the void. They killed many of those services too, and in vain. None of those acts stopped piracy. The Pirate Bay may be the leading surviving service now. They misidentified the monster. It wasn't Napster, it wasn't even the Internet and technology itself, it was Nature.

    It's astonishing that the courts can even think of doing such spiteful things. Keep on threatening to chop babies in half, as in the Judgment of Solomon, and it will someday backfire. The court will be forced to admit they were bluffing, or really cut the baby in half. It has happened. The courts are baby killers.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:collateral damage by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      You were doing so well too, right until you slid off the edge at the end.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:collateral damage by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      He didn't slide off the end, he was literally historically accurate. You could say that he used the wrong tense, but that wouldn't even hold up under analysis. Analysis shows that he was using "baby" metaphorically, so it didn't matter that the examples of real babies being killed are historic. The metaphoric babies are still being killed.

      However, the problem with the argument is that often two sides will each be supporting their own metaphoric baby. In this case ANY decision will kill at least one of them, and often no decision, or a delayed decision, will end up killing both.

      The legal system is not about justice. They don't even claim to be about justice anymore. Instead they claim to be following the rules. (Often they are.) So to lawyers and judges, legal cases are essentially high stakes gaming. With a variable scoring system.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.