FBI Asked Megaupload To Preserve Pirated Files, Then Used Them Against Dotcom

avxo writes "According to an article on the New Zealand Herald, Kim Dotcom says his team has evidence showing that the Department of Homeland Security served a search warrant on Megaupload in 2010, forcing it to preserve pirated movies. According to Mr. Dotcom, those preserved movies are the center of the latest legal battle. 'When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files.' He added: '[t]he FBI used the fact the files were still in the account of the ... user to get the warrant to seize our own domains. This is outrageous.'"

Comments

Nowhere fast

[ExecutorElassus]

That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.

Re:Nowhere fast

[MichaelSmith]

That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.

Don't you mean NZ? Australia doesn't really have a role here. Which is not to say that the australian security services wouldn't jump at the chance to help the FBI in a case like this.

Re:Nowhere fast

[crafty.munchkin]

I think you'll find the Australian authorities had nothing to do with it, since New Zealand is a completely separate country to Australia! ;)

Re:Nowhere fast

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken"
- Book of Chan

This is the new American Century. Get used to it.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Zocalo]

At this point, I think "nowhere fast" is probably what they are trying to achieve. It's a lost cause, so the longer the studios can keep things tied up in a legal limbo, the better it is for them.

Re:Nowhere fast

[ExecutorElassus]

whoops. I got Dotcom mixed up with, uh, Julian Assange (who I believe is an AU citizen, yes?). I'll just go back to nursing this booze now.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Black Parrot]

This is the new Corporate Pwned Century. Get used to it.

FTFY

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

"Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken"
- Book of Chan

This is the new American Century. Get used to it.

Unlike you, some of us still have spines, and we are not ready to accept
corporate totalitarianism.

I haven't bought anything from MPAA or RIAA in 15 years. Nor have I downloaded
anything illegally. I just quit consuming their crap entirely. If everyone did this,
the game would change.

Re:Nowhere fast

[MichaelSmith]

whoops. I got Dotcom mixed up with, uh, Julian Assange (who I believe is an AU citizen, yes?). I'll just go back to nursing this booze now.

Yeah Julian is one of us. In fact I know a guy who had the pleasure of having his system broken in to by Mr Assange. For a geek he is strangely concerned about what people say about him. Most of us don't give a shit.

Re:Nowhere fast

[XaXXon]

Too bad you can't file abn anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the FBI. That seems to be what they're doing. The resources of the US against some dude in NZ.

 

Re:Nowhere fast

[game kid]

Don't be so quick to mea culpa. If this is **AA-bribe-fueled, then said **AA would happily the various govts to make them paint Dotcom and Assange, along with Anons and such, as members of the same Axis Of Anti-American Terrorist And Computer-Hacking And Also Job-Killing Piratical Evil.

It would be a big marketing coup for them to get that stuck in people's heads, and big marketing coups matter these days (instead of things like "competition", "compassion", "law", or "value of product").

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't bought anything from MPAA or RIAA in 15 years.

You don't have kids do you!

Re:Nowhere fast

[Lisias]

This is just one more nail in the coffin.

What coffin? X-(

We're speaking about the country that declared war and invaded Iraq under false accusations to kill Saddam, and violated Pakistan's sovereignty with a cover up operation to kill Bin Laden, all of that without any consequences.

(And I will not touch this Assange mess).

What make you think that the FBI should be worried for a so "small case"?

Re:Nowhere fast

[Runaway1956]

Where do I go to join the Axis?

Re:Nowhere fast

[Runaway1956]

It appears that your horizons might be expanded by visiting the New American Century site. www.newamericancentury.org/

What GP posted, and what you posted, are synonymous. In the past twelve years, the site has softened their sales pitch, sort of almost disguising it, but there is no secret that they represent corporate powers. It's only a thinly veiled secret that they intend to buy out the United States government to make their dream come true. The only secret is, how far they have progressed toward ownership of the government.

For the past five presidential elections, both candidates were owned by the corporations. If I really dug, I could probably demonstrate the same for elections further back in history.

Re:Nowhere fast

[tftp]

If everyone did this, the game would change.

Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:

cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)

What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

New Corporate may American nah - your Rome in Decline all ready no were to expand into to steal gold and beginning to struggle to pay the troops.

Waiting for the day you split in to the N and S empire.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Just download LOIC and you're sorted (considered part of the Axis, that is..)

Re:Nowhere fast

[fredprado]

Keep thinking everything you or anybody else does is irrelevant and that will bring you far, my friend.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fine with violating Pakistan's sovereignty in this case, given the likelihood of them spilling the beans.

Re:Nowhere fast

[davester666]

You already are part of the Axis, since you aren't part of big media.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Mitreya]

That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.

What makes you think they are trying to bring a real case? Megaupload is gone and buried. Servers are confiscated. Even the legitimate paid users have lost access to the files and are getting no compensation. Mission accomplished

You think there will be any penalties assessed against anyone once this case predictably falls apart? I wouldn't hold my breath (though here's hoping he will at least sue someone...)

Re:Nowhere fast

[Runaway1956]

I'm not so sure that statement is true. Bearing in mind, there are three kinds of people in the world. Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and the biggest group, those who wonder what the hell happened.

I'm in and out of the first two groups, on this and other issues. That other group? They are the enablers, who permit big media to do what they do. They aren't big media, they aren't the Axis, they are just there, giving tacit support to whatever government and big media might do in their names. The so-called sheeple. Hollywood, or any other member of the **AA tells them to go watch a movie for twenty bucks, the sheeple just say "Bahhh", and they run with the herd down to the cinema.

Ehhh - someone will come along directly to tell me that I've lost all credibility with the word sheeple. Whatever . . .

Re:Nowhere fast

[VortexCortex]

If everyone did this, the game would change.

Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:

cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)

What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?

OVER 9000!

You failed to realize rage is an irrational number roughly equivalent to 0.0001111111111 (repeating).
The limit of your function expressed in the bironic form (Internet Math Notation), is approximately equivalent to: 1!!!11!!11!!!1one111111!11
(whereby "!" replaces zeros, "one" is the fractional separator, to the right of which is the binary exponent).

Protip: There is always a smarter smartass. Get on my level.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

http://careers.microsoft.com/

Re:Nowhere fast

[maxwell demon]

Ehhh - someone will come along directly to tell me that I've lost all credibility with the word sheeple. Whatever . . .

I understand: You don't care about him coming along directly, because you've long run away (since 1956; you've probably reached outer space by now). :-)

Re:Nowhere fast

[hjf]

What mission? You sound like you think megaupload was the only file locker out there.

Re:Nowhere fast

[maxwell demon]

If everyone did this, the game would change.

Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:

cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)

What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?

9.99, of course.

More interestingly, given that the number of movies you can consume per year is limited, this formula means that geek rage cannot go arbitrary close to zero.

And those watching only few movies per year have a negative geek rage. For example, if you watch only 2 movies per year, your geek rage is -1/7990.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Tastecicles]

Actually, Obama spent more, which puts lie to that. Half of Obama's Super PAC donations were of more than US$1m, while those of Romney's made up only a third of his total. So that puts lie to that as well.

Do your homework BEFORE posting nonsense, not after.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor have I downloaded anything illegally

That's good to know, but doesn't really need to be stated as downloading is not a crime.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, in the ??AA's minds, you are a pirate and should be sued.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Zontar The Mindless]

Just download LOIC and you're sorted (considered part of the Axis, that is..)

Anything that requires you to use Mono is certainly Axis-worthy.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

... buy out the United States government ...

Some people think the US population was purchased as chattels in 1933.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Zontar The Mindless]

I find it a bit challenging to feel any great remorse over Pakistan's violated honour, given that they (a) said "Yeah, yeah, UBL is teh evil, we want him dead, too" and then (b) harboured him, possibly for years...

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think anyone gives a shit about Pakistan's sovereignty over Bin Laden. The fact that he was even there says all you need to know about that government.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

They went into Pakistan after Pakistan hid an enemy of their supposed ally because said enemy was also their ally, and Pakistan can't say anything because even though they not so secretly aren't really a US ally, officially they still are a US ally and can't be seen officially hiding an enemy of their official ally that isn't also officially their ally.

As for Iraq, would you have accepted them invading Nazi Germany to kill Hitler for any reason at all? 6 million Kurds killed by Saddam (as many as Jews were killed by Hitler and in similar fashion) would hope you'd say yes.

Don't forget that they also toppled the government that was actively hiding Osama from their revenge because they straight up said, "Fuck this, hand him over or you go with him."

However, the coffin is in the FBI's involvement with the *AAs. I'd be surprised if they'd be willing to do anymore dirty work for *AAs until they can get some actual precedent to justify them.

Re:Nowhere fast

[tlhIngan]

That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.

Even so, that's all they need to do. Even if they drop the entire case, they've shut down MegaUpload for a year and put an incredible scare on everyone else. And former MU customers have files of much less value.

Digital data loses its value quick - if you're working on the next version of something and a competitor can get your computers seized for a year, that basically puts you out of business for that year, and probably completely out of business.

Likewise, all of MU's customers have been stuck without their files. All the legit files are a year older and probably not as relevant today as it was a year ago, thus worth a lot less.

Basically all that's happening is all of the MU assets are getting rapidly devalued, and a year or two down the road, even if it's returned untouched, plenty of irreparable harm has occurred. And that's all that matters.

Re:Nowhere fast

[SuricouRaven]

Only a few. It also discourages new ones very effectively. Unlike a p2p network, a person can't throw together a filelocker in their bedroom. It takes money to get it going, to set up the servers and pay for storage and bandwidth until the income starts - and only a fool is going to invest their money in a filelocker business now it's apparent that any successful filelocker is likely to be shut down and all assets siezed.

Re:Nowhere fast

[rtb61]

You have just listed the beginning of damages, basically the US in-justice system will end up being the ones paying to create the newer, bigger and better MEGAUPLOAD, ohh the irony. Seriously what were the FBI thinking, this is so far beyond entrapment, it is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Catch is number one in the line of fine of a multi-million dollar even hundreds of million dollar lawsuit is the New Zealand government, for New Zealands hope you enjoyed sticking your rear hooves into the US in-Justice System gumboots, baah baah because you'll be the one paying the price. Of course now Kim Dotcomm can have fun dragging the US through the WTO for obstructing trade through criminal acts.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Lisias]

I find it a bit challenging to feel any great remorse over Pakistan's violated honour,[...]

Me too.

But I'm not talking about remorse, but consequences.

There're some that think that Argentina had every right to take over the Falkland Islands (they call it Malvinas), and yet, there were consequences.

Hell, even on Vietnam the USA had some good reasons to go to war - and yet, there were consequences.

Re:Nowhere fast

[DMiax]

If that is really the formula, corporations would work extremely hard to bring geek rage as near as possible to zero. Try again :)

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find the Australian authorities had nothing to do with it, since New Zealand is a completely separate country to Australia! ;)

Yes, the ignorance around here is disgraceful. While New Zealand hasn't covered itself in glory here, that pales in insignificance next to Australia's crime of having given Adolf Hitler to the world. Not to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger...

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't bought anything from MPAA or RIAA in 15 years. Nor have I downloaded anything illegally. I just quit consuming their crap entirely. If everyone did this, the game would change.

Doesn't matter - if you're not an obedient consumer they'll happily toss you in with the pirates anyway...

Re:Nowhere fast

[MysteriousPreacher]

Ehhh - someone will come along directly to tell me that I've lost all credibility with the word sheeple. Whatever . .

Sounds a bit like you're ready at a moments notice to don spandex and take to the rooftops of Gotham, to setup a laptop and tweet. The sheeple thing, while bring trite, isn't the main reason I'd suspect you of being just another armchair revolutionary. Telling us what you make happen is a start, and why you're different from the legion of V/Neo wannabes who lurk in the shadows, ever vigilant and poised ready to write a blog post or something similar.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Runaway1956]

Don Spandex? Glad to meet you - although, I've never heard that name before. Is Spandex your family name, or did you just change your name to protect the innocent?

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read correctly the information on that page (i'm not familiar with the US election founding system), Super PAC for Obama is 7% of total while being 15% of total for Romney, so Obama got in total less donations above 1M than Romney.

Almost 40% of it's total founding came through small donations under 200$, for Romney that percentage is 10%.

if you do your homework, do it properly.

Re:Nowhere fast

[MysteriousPreacher]

Changed the name. Don Hitler wasn't playing very well in my career writing erotic fiction for overweight women.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Wovel]

By assign yourself to the first two groups, your post tells us a lot about you. You believe you are special and different when your not. That is the defining characteristic of group 3. Your herd welcomes you.

Re:Nowhere fast

[MartinG]

Having kids is no excuse. I do have kids and admittedly its more tempting to "give in" but I still manage not to support the MPAA or RIAA at all.

Re:Nowhere fast

[canadiannomad]

Totally agree! /me drags file to his drop-box, uploads a file to his Google Drive and grabs a file from iCloud....

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't lower myself to a 0.000111111(repeating) smartass level.

Re:Nowhere fast

[forand]

Please mod parent up and grandparent down. While the Obama related Super PAC did raise a higher percentage of its total funds from large donation, not only was that total less than Romney's (7% for O and 15% for R) but while the AVERAGE was lower for R the top 3 single donators were all on the R side all almost 3 times the largest on the O side. Furthermore, the plots the article the grandparent linked to only tell part of the story: they do not cover the newest, largest arena of political spending PACs unassociated with a candidate (e.g. Carl Rove's Crossroads). These plays are the ones who spent large sums of money and do not need to disclose where the money came from nor even how much they spent. While these types of PACs are supposed to be unassociated with candidates, Propublica has done a number of in depth articles showing that it is just in name only.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Runaway1956]

Mr. Wovel - look around you. How many people in your home town even knows the name of their congress critter? How many have any idea what's going on with ACTA, NPAA, and a buttload other measures aimed at government and corporate intrusion on your privacy? How many are aware of the ramifications of the Patriot Act, TSA, and ongoing debate about curtailing rights even further?

I'm involved. How many of your homies are involved?

I'm pretty sure that if you're to answer honestly, your numbers will be pretty close to my numbers. More than 90% of my acquaintances have no clue, and they can't be bothered to listen and to learn. And, they WON'T listen or learn, until someone close to them is imprisoned or bankrupted by the **AA.

Special? Different? Anyone who stands up and is counted is different in this day and age. And, they are certainly NOT part of the herd.

How long has it been since you wrote the occupant of the White House? Your congress critters? Even your mayor? Odds are with me, so I'll guess "never".

Re:Nowhere fast

[Black Parrot]

It appears that your horizons might be expanded by visiting the New American Century site. www.newamericancentury.org/

I thought "New American Century" referred to the neocons who think they can fix all the world's problems by invading other countries and setting them straight.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Runaway1956]

While you're not right, you're not terribly wrong. The neocon's ultimate goal, is to have every man, woman, and child in the world working to enrich Wall Street. With globalization at it's current stage, "Wall Street" is only a pointer towards those people who really own and control Wall Street. Those few thousands who ultimately control all of the world's largest corporations, with interlocking seats on boards of directors.

If they think that an invasion of this country or that will ultimately be profitable to them, then they approve of invasion. A few thousand, or a few million dead bodies don't faze them.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Australias biggest crime is inflicting Stephen Conroy on the world actually

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my! Now you're an axisory to a crime!

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously what were the FBI thinking ...

That's the whole problem. The FBI doesn't think at all, they just do whatever their corporate masters tell them too.

Re:Nowhere fast

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

But...wouldn't it make more sense to build a case on a strong foundation, so the same tactics can be applied against the next thousand upload sites?

Maybe you're right, and their vendetta is solely against MegaUpload. In that case, they win. But in terms of fighting upload sites or piracy, these tactics might win a battle, but will definitely lose a war.

Re:Nowhere fast

[davydagger]

or the FBI will probably refuse to stand trial stating there is no jurisdiction.

I hope at least new zealand tries, and the resulting non-cooperation results in copyright enforcement ties being smashed.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats Austria. NOT Austalia !!! *sigh*.....

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

whoosh

Re:Nowhere fast

[dbIII]

Also with them going after a rival agency and forcing the head of the CIA to resign over a morality issue that should be irrelevant they really do seem to be abusing their position. It's as insane as the bad old days when they accused one of the richest men in the USA, Charlie Chaplin, of being a communist, then when that obviously wouldn't stick they went for "moral culpability".

Re:Nowhere fast

[dbIII]

Hell, even on Vietnam the USA had some good reasons to go to war

An election was coming up, and there was this little French Colonial conflict that could be spun as taking on the Reds and turn a President into a war hero.

You can be thankful that Carter didn't think the same way but instead pulled the plug on the actions against Iran.

Re:Nowhere fast

[rtb61]

So next time the FBI cries wolf, what happens in the region?

Re:Nowhere fast

[tehcyder]

I haven't bought anything from MPAA or RIAA in 15 years. Nor have I downloaded anything illegally. I just quit consuming their crap entirely.

If their stuff is crap, then you shouldn't be consuming it anyway, although I'm not sure it's a good idea to avoid modern pop culture entirely, as you'll end up sounding out of touch and all get-off-my-lawn-y

Re:Nowhere fast

[tehcyder]

Having kids is no excuse. I do have kids and admittedly its more tempting to "give in" but I still manage not to support the MPAA or RIAA at all.

I bet your kids are really popular at school and never get teased for never having heard of Hanna Montana, or whatever.

Re:Nowhere fast

[tehcyder]

Nor have I downloaded anything illegally

That's good to know, but doesn't really need to be stated as downloading is not a crime.

Copyright infringement is illegal in the sense that you can be sued for it under civil law, but not generally a criminal offence, although this is in the process of changing in places like the US.

Re:Nowhere fast

[tehcyder]

There're some that think that Argentina had every right to take over the Falkland Islands (they call it Malvinas), and yet, there were consequences.

The Argentinians were lucky Britain didn't nuke Buenos Aires. As it turned out, the main consequence (apart from the unnecessary loss of life) was the overthrow of General Galtieri and his bunch of weak-minded fascists and the introduction of what passes for democracy in South America..

Re:Nowhere fast

[tehcyder]

Likewise, all of MU's customers have been stuck without their files.

It must be scary living in your world where the only copy of your data is tied up with a legally dubious operation run by a well known fraudster and con man.

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Kata Bijak, Kata Mutiara, kata bijak, kata motivasi,

Re:Nowhere fast

[randyleepublic]

Let me give you a hint: we lost the war in 1913. Of course "ownership" is a relative term, however any politician who steps to far outside the range of allowable actions risks "meeting Oswald".

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

to setup a laptop

"set up". ("Setup" is a noun.)

Re:Nowhere fast

[Anonymous Coward]

at it's current stage

"its".

Re:Nowhere fast

[MysteriousPreacher]

Good spellings and the Kelsey Grammer aren't necessary in the crafting if the erotic fiction for the morbidly obese, no?

Wow.

[ZephyrQ]

Just. Wow.

I guess that means that I shouldn't listen to what the government tells me to do...I could get sued--or arrested.

Re:Wow.

[bloodhawk]

NO, it means if they tell you to do something then keep the evidence they told you to do it. You would be in far more shit for not doing what they ordered and have no comeback in court.

Re:Wow.

[Tastecicles]

they're the Federal Bureau* of Investigation. They are an office of the Government. Ergo, they are the Government.

*From the French, literally office.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, over 2000 users uploaded these files. Mega is trying to use the structure of their site where they hashed an upload and only kept one copy of the file to say that because there was only copy and because NinjaVideo had uploaded 36 of these files at some point (because NinjaVideo uploaded thousands if not hundreds of thousands of files), they couldn't delete those files because the order from the DHS instructed them not to. But that's a ridiculous assertion— even if they were told not to delete the files (really they were just told not to delete the NinjaVideo account, so they're using a liberal interpretation to include these files) they had an obligation to prevent the files from being used for further illegal purposes.

Phrased another way, a court order requiring preservation does not mean Mega is allowed to continue to allow others access to those files and continue to break the law. Those 36 files were accessed, downloaded, and shared illegally after the point at which they were required to be preserved, and access removed under the DMCA.

Mega cannot use a design component of the site which was done for cost purposes, as a defense against criminal liability.

Re:Wow.

[X.25]

No, over 2000 users uploaded these files. Mega is trying to use the structure of their site where they hashed an upload and only kept one copy of the file to say that because there was only copy and because NinjaVideo had uploaded 36 of these files at some point (because NinjaVideo uploaded thousands if not hundreds of thousands of files), they couldn't delete those files because the order from the DHS instructed them not to. But that's a ridiculous assertionâ" even if they were told not to delete the files (really they were just told not to delete the NinjaVideo account, so they're using a liberal interpretation to include these files) they had an obligation to prevent the files from being used for further illegal purposes.

Phrased another way, a court order requiring preservation does not mean Mega is allowed to continue to allow others access to those files and continue to break the law. Those 36 files were accessed, downloaded, and shared illegally after the point at which they were required to be preserved, and access removed under the DMCA.

Mega cannot use a design component of the site which was done for cost purposes, as a defense against criminal liability.

Wow. So much nonsense in so few paragraphs.

It would appear that you intimate knowledge of the papers FBI presented to Carpathia/Mega, eh?

Or you are just talking out of your ass, since pretty much everything you talked about is plain wrong?

Re:Wow.

[SuricouRaven]

It could be argued that they could use the hash to more effectively police infringing content: Once a file is reported, they could have pulled all uploads of that hash and blocked new ones. But this would be a poor idea, because it'd be trivial for pirates to circumvent by just changing one byte (Like a padding file in a rar archive, or a new password), so all it'd really do is raise their cost of storage substantially in return for delaying pirates by about three minutes.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

they're the Federal Bureau* of Investigation. They are an office of the Government. Ergo, they are the Government.

No, ergo they are part of the state. The government is not the same as the state unless you are using redneck slang.

Re:Wow.

[bloodhawk]

It isn't hard to find the information, what the A/C submitted appears to be accurate and the story has simply been slanted to make it look like the FBI is using dirty tactics when it appears that it is megaupload that is being called on their dirty tactics.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't. MegaUpload DID make infringing links nonfunctional promptly upon report.

The indictment (have you read it?) is that they didn't take down the underlying files which were still accessible via other links which had NOT yet been reported as infringing.

I'm not sure how this gels with the language of DMCA 512(c) which states "remove OR DISABLE ACCESS TO" [emphasis mine], but that demonstrates bad faith on the part of the FBI.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unsurprising that you posted that as an Anon Coward.

From dictionary.com
Noun.

9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.

Adj.

1. Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government: a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security.

Quite simply, the Government IS the State, and you're a damn idiot.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

It just goes to show you, that the defense "I was just following orders" isn't any more valid today than it was 70 years ago.

If the government orders you to break the law, you are not shielded from prosecution for obeying the illegal order.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the previous poster. Yes, I have read the indictment, and since you've clearly read DMCA 512(c) since you quoted it, I'm not sure how you make your assertion because the facts in the indictment lead to the exact opposite conclusion. That they didn't take down the underlying files which were still accessible via other links means does not mean they needed to delete those files, it means they needed to disable all outside links to those files.

Put another way, to claim Safe Harbor they must remove or disable access to the files. The problem cited by the indictment is that MegaUpload did not in fact do either of these to the 39 files in question. 36 of those files potentially/arguably could not be deleted by Mega or they might have violate the DHS search warrant (we'd have to see the original text of the warrant to know), but the search warrant has not been claimed to prevent them from disabling access. By failing to disable access, Mega lost their Safe Harbor shield.

It's very straight forward to me, and once again is just another example of Dotcom's reality distortion field. This guy is a criminal; regardless of your position on freedom and sharing of information, I do not understand the desire to bend over backward in order to defend him.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it could be argued if they had in fact used it that way. In reality, they used it to make pirating easier, by allowing new links to be generated and only removing old links rather than the file itself.

Had they utilized their system the way you suggest, they might have actually have avoided some of the criminal charges— though in fact it is unclear how reliant their case is on this specific element. They have other pieces of evidence of it being a criminal copyright infringement conspiracy, but I'll accept it would help their argument for safe harbor for some of their actions.

Re:Wow.

[tehcyder]

In the UK, the "government" refers to the majority party in power. So at the moment the government is made up of a Tory/LibDem coalition, there is a Tory prime minister, and so on. You wouldn't say that Labour MPs are part of the government. Organisations like the police or military or social services are part of the state, but not really controlled by the government in any direct way.

Maybe the usage is different in the US.

Re:Wow.

[bhiestand]

In the UK, the "government" refers to the majority party in power. So at the moment the government is made up of a Tory/LibDem coalition, there is a Tory prime minister, and so on. You wouldn't say that Labour MPs are part of the government. Organisations like the police or military or social services are part of the state, but not really controlled by the government in any direct way.

Maybe the usage is different in the US.

No, it's the same. People just get really confused because the US has states in addition to "the state", and the Head of State is also the Head of Government. In my experience, the average educated professional has no clue on the distinction.

But then we do have the, what are they called? Sovereign individuals? They're the whackjobs who think all government above the county level is illegitimate, and they tend to be closely aligned with libertarians. To them, everything and everyone is "the government"... and that's a bad, scary thing. They also tend to be very concerned that the UN, as part of a zionist New World Order conspiracy, has an army that is planning to invade the US and steal all their guns in the near future. Also, something about Sharia Law and Communism.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. In the UK both forms are interchangeable. The local council is referrered to as the gov't as well as any prominent members such as the Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with parties, but I may refer to the government by using the Party name, usually in jest.

e.g "Those damn Conservatives won't pay my light bill!" - Correct!

Also, MPs are part of the gov't. But becasue they are local gov't nobody usually knows who they are. We still refer to people like the Sec. of Education as the Governement coming to town/school and they are elected MPs.

Actually..

[MakersDirector]

.That's what they said they did...

Real truth is... They had too much kiddie porn on their servers, So they decided to 'mitigate the problem' by offloading the 'least questionable' material off their servers.

Re:Actually..

[erroneus]

Speculate much? Imaginative speculation anyway.

No. The content industry has a continuous campaign against internet companies which help to distribute material. The same players have gotten other country's law enforcement to act on their behalf even when what they were doing wasn't actually illegal. Getting the US enforcement agencies (note I did not call them law enforcement... just 'enforcement') to break the law in such an overt way is proof of the power and influence these content providers carry.

I will not miss them. They are a cancer on progress. Volunteer entertainers are popping up everywhere just to get a million likes instead of a million dollars. They can't compete against that kind of currency.

Re:Actually..

[Runaway1956]

The kiddie porn is on the darknet. You may have found something of that nature on Megauplaod, but that's not where pedobear hangs out.

Re:Actually..

[westlake]

I will not miss them. They are a cancer on progress. Volunteer entertainers are popping up everywhere just to get a million likes instead of a million dollars. They can't compete against that kind of currency.

The geek defines himself by the big media product, pop cultural artifacts like Star Trek, Star Wars. and The Lord of the Rings.

Re:Actually..

[Pseudonym Authority]

I doubt that very much. Keeping it in the darknet is a great way to save evidence if your house gets raided for other charges. Sure, you can cast an encryption spell or something that might work without 50005 overhead and result only in serving the goods out at 5kbps, but why not just pop behind a Iranian\Chinese\N. Korean proxy or ten, and upload it to someone else machine?

Re:Actually..

[Runaway1956]

Well - you can check out I2P. It's easily found with a google search. First set up a virtual machine so that you can easily delete everything when you are utterly sick of seeing what's available. Set up I2P, and let it settle in, then start browsing. Depending on your tolerance for that sick shit, you can see just about anything you care to see - or don't care to see. Some time before you are ready to tear your eyes out of your head, just close it all down, and delete the VM, then write zeros to the free space left behind.

Proxies are very traceable, on the real internet. If I were a political activist or a CP guy, there's no way I'd trust any combination of proxies.

Re:Actually..

[Pseudonym Authority]

I am well aware of I2P, Freenet, Onionland, etc... Go find some sites that offer free forum hosting, dig around a little, and witness the theft of innocence (including your own). Then poke around Usenet for a while. After that, Next, go find some abandoned vanity imageboards and see what's going on.

Oddly enough, old webrings on shitty HTML3 sites can lead to some terrible places (but you often run into creepy things of any nature when you do this).

Proxies are very traceable, on the real internet. If I were a political activist or a CP guy, there's no way I'd trust any combination of proxies.

Well it seems to be working out pretty well for the sick fucks.

Re:Actually..

[bornagainpenguin]

The geek defines himself by the big media product, pop cultural artifacts like Star Trek, Star Wars. and The Lord of the Rings.

Yes, yes--but who told you that? Just because Big Bang Theory says so, doesn't make it so.

More importantly, why do you assume that if true the situation will never change?

Re:Actually..

[Anonymous Coward]

Proxies are very traceable, on the real internet.

But choosing the right proxies makes tracing them unfeasible.

Re:Actually..

[Anonymous Coward]

...make it so.

Geeeeeeeeeek!

Re:Actually..

[SuricouRaven]

I know it exists on Freenet. The major indexers refuse to carry links, and the pedophiles are polite enough not to post images openly anywhere, so as a typical user you won't run into it unless you go looking - but every now and then you'll see a link advertising a freesite as containing kiddie porn. If the cost of free, unregulatable speech is the existance of some unobtrusive kiddie porn sites, then I'd consider that an acceptable cost.

Re:Actually..

[Noughmad]

The (true) geek defines himself this way to others, because this is what other people understand. Everybody knows of Star Trek. On the other hand, if I started talking about why I prefer Python over Javascript most people wouldn't have a clue.

Re:Actually..

[Tom]

No. The content industry has a continuous campaign against internet companies which help to distribute material

Like Apple (iTuneS), Netflix, Amazon (eBooks) and such?

I dislike the MAFIAA as much as anyone here, but let's not get overzealous, irrational and stupid. What they dislike is people not paying them what they think they are due. You can love them or hate them, but at least that's a rational motive.

Re:Actually..

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not miss them. They are a cancer on progress. Volunteer entertainers are popping up everywhere just to get a million likes instead of a million dollars. They can't compete against that kind of currency.

The geek defines himself by the big media product, pop cultural artifacts like Star Trek, Star Wars. and The Lord of the Rings.

One of those examples is actually a counterexample.

Re:Actually..

[Anonymous Coward]

And the true geeks would think you're an idiot for not just writing it in pure HTML.

Re:Actually..

[erroneus]

Big Media fought them all and take huge portions of the revenues of these other businesses for themselves. It's more than disliking people not paying for content. They presume domain over ALL content whether it's actually theirs or not. People routinely create their own only to have to taken down by DMCA demand. They are assaulting all content and delivery methods until they get paid.

Their 'rights' go to far and they are buying newer, better and more powerful rights every day.

Re:Actually..

[Anonymous Coward]

CP.... is cerebral palsy...

Why would you use proxies to hide that...

Re:Actually..

[tehcyder]

Speculate much? Imaginative speculation anyway.

No. The content industry has a continuous campaign against internet companies which help to distribute material. The same players have gotten other country's law enforcement to act on their behalf even when what they were doing wasn't actually illegal. Getting the US enforcement agencies (note I did not call them law enforcement... just 'enforcement') to break the law in such an overt way is proof of the power and influence these content providers carry.

I will not miss them. They are a cancer on progress. Volunteer entertainers are popping up everywhere just to get a million likes instead of a million dollars. They can't compete against that kind of currency.

Crusty jugglers!

Re:Actually..

[tehcyder]

If you get rid of the MPAA/RIAA and have a new generation of artists who can't make much money themselves (because their product is freely distributable) but are extremely popular, it just means that someone else is getting rich off them instead; and that someone will basically be Google or whatever rival search/host/advertising company replaces them.

Re:Actually..

[tehcyder]

If you don't think the movie trilogy of the Lord of the Rings was a massive budget, media/pop culture artifact, you must be taking some funny drugs.

Re:Actually..

[tehcyder]

Big Media fought them all and take huge portions of the revenues of these other businesses for themselves. It's more than disliking people not paying for content. They presume domain over ALL content whether it's actually theirs or not. People routinely create their own only to have to taken down by DMCA demand. They are assaulting all content and delivery methods until they get paid.

Their 'rights' go to far and they are buying newer, better and more powerful rights every day.

If you get a DMCA takedown and you have not infringed on copyright, you should argue against it.

Re:Actually..

[erroneus]

DMCA takedown notices spawned automated takedown services such as the ones we see on Youtube and others... and saw, ironically enough, on Megaupload.

The harm of the DMCA goes on and on. Also, hosting providers take down first and ask questions later... or rather wait for the customer to ask questions later.

Re:Actually..

[tehcyder]

If the cost of free, unregulatable speech is the existance of some unobtrusive kiddie porn sites, then I'd consider that an acceptable cost.

I wouldn't. The fact that the nice paedophiles aren't shoving their stuff in your face does not mean it's not there. Images and videos of child abuse are illegal and should not be protected by any bollocks about "free speech": they are recordings of criminal activity and therefore quite justifiably banned. Except in people's libertarian wet dreams, any sane society must have rules and laws in order to remain civilised. Your right to free speech most certainly does not extend to a right to break any law you feel like.

People like you should be co-operating with the authorities in reporting and hopefully tracking down paedophiles when you come across their spoor, not wittering on about the non-existent rights of disgusting criminals.

Re:Actually..

[benwad]

Considering this view that entertainment should be free is so prevalent on /. I was wondering how many people agree with Richard Stallman's view that software should be free, and no-one should have to pay for it. I'd wager that, since many people here work as software developers (myself included) we disagree with RMS. It's good to be content with getting a million likes instead of a million dollars, but my landlord doesn't accept likes.

Re:Actually..

[SuricouRaven]

Then why is 'America's Dumbest Criminals' not just allowed, but shown on television? There's a big difference between criminalising an act and criminalising posession of a recording of an act.

Or to look at it another way: If speech of any type is to be banned, then this ban must be enforceable. Somewhere, someone has to have the power to declare the law violated and have sites closed, documents destroyed and perhaps people jailed to keep them from talking. Technologies which can be used to circumvent this, like Freenet, must also be prohibited. Otherwise the law becomes unenforceable.

That someone isn't going to be you. If you're lucky it'll be a sensible judge acting in the directions of a sensible legislature. More likely the power to ban speech will fall into the hands of oppressive state leaders, corporations desperate to silence threats to their profits and do-gooders eager to rid the world of whatever they regard as evil, heretical or perverse. You're probably in one of the lucky countries, where this is largely an academic debate - but now try going to North Korea and telling the people just how many people Kim Jong-Il had executed.

The power to silence speech is too great to be entrusted to anyone, no matter how good their intentions.

And?

[Anonymous Coward]

The goverment bought and paid for by hollywood over the last decade would pull out every illegal dirty trick to get there way once again?

I'm not shocked. That's normal now.
Best get used to that kind of shit. This is the path we have chosen. Or someone did...

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

The goverment bought and paid for by hollywood over the last decade would pull out every illegal dirty trick to get there way once again?

I'm not shocked. That's normal now. Best get used to that kind of shit. This is the path we have chosen. Or someone did...

TRANSLATION: BEND OVER AND PULL YOUR PANTS DOWN.

Re:And?

[Nyder]

The goverment bought and paid for by hollywood over the last decade would pull out every illegal dirty trick to get there way once again?

I'm not shocked. That's normal now.
Best get used to that kind of shit. This is the path we have chosen. Or someone did...

You bend over and get fucked, me, i'm going to fight it.

Re:And?

[jamstar7]

The goverment bought and paid for by hollywood over the last decade would pull out every illegal dirty trick to get there way once again?

I'm not shocked. That's normal now. Best get used to that kind of shit. This is the path we have chosen. Or someone did...

You bend over and get fucked, me, i'm going to fight it.

I'll save you a spot in the chow line at Gitmo.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's resisting! Taser him!

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'll be there right along with him...

Bending over and becoming a BOHICAn doesn't keep you from that fate.

Re:And?

[tehcyder]

You bend over and get fucked, me, i'm going to fight it.

Yeah, fight the fucking power. You use your weapons cache to stop ZOG from interfering with your constitutional right to download Rihanna songs and Transformer movies without paying.

You'll have to excuse the overwhelming majority of humanity who don't follow you out onto the barricades over this issue.

It's evidence.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It's evidence. You expect the FBI to tell them to destroy the evidence?

Re:It's evidence.

[Black Parrot]

It's evidence. You expect the FBI to tell them to destroy the evidence?

Read the summary.

Teh FBI wants to have it both ways.

Re:It's evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the summary is misrepresenting. For example, they may have demanded the data be preserved, but not made available to users. Perhaps they carried on with "business as usual" when the FBI demanded that all outside access be blocked, but logs and data preserved.

It'd be like if someone was caught with drugs. If they destroyed the drugs after being arrested, that'd be destroying evidence. However, if they someone had access to the drugs post arrest and tried to sell them, that'd not look too good either,

Re:It's evidence.

[queazocotal]

Legal requirements on technology companies are often poorly written, and not actually sensible, as the lawyers involved may not properly understand the internet.

It's quite plausible that they used standard boilerplate 'Do not delete, modify, or ...the file at http://.../ which could not reasonably be read as allowing them to be pulled offline, as that would be a modification.

Re:It's evidence.

[fyngyrz]

the lawyers involved may not properly understand the internet.

What's to understand? It's a series of tubes, right? Let's craft some legislation!

Re:It's evidence.

[jamstar7]

It's evidence. You expect the FBI to tell them to destroy the evidence?

Read the summary.

Teh FBI wants to have it both ways.

Of course they do, they're a government agency. They also want to believe 4 impossible things before breakfast. Problem is, I don't think they've got enough dope to smoke to make that happen.

Re:It's evidence.

[avxo]

In my defense, I don't think the summary is misrepresenting because of any fault of my own - I more or less quoted the actual article.

That's not to say that the article isn't misrepresenting the situation. Someone else here already pointed out that mega de-duped submissions, and that they may have continued making the files available. This would make the subsequent action taken by the FBI "reasonable" (in the sense that they didn't force them to retain something only to then legally pursue them for complying and retaining it).

correct me if i'm wrong?

[arbiter1]

But there is something in the law that protects megaupload from this kinda BS. They complied with a search warrant and held the files on their system like FBI asked, now they are being shut down cause they kept them.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[asmkm22]

Possibly. It depends on how much truth there is behind both sides claims. Neither the Feds nor Kim have much credibility here, and both have a history of distorting as much truth as possible to get their way. I don't envy the ones who have to try and cut through the bullshit and figure out exactly what needs to be done.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[cyberjock1980]

I wouldn't bet on that.

My guess is there's no laws that protect from this kind of BS because the gov't wouldn't acknowledge they are possible of that kind of stupidity. Not to mention if it goes to court do you expect a jury to actually find someone guilty because the FBI issued a warrant to do it? If I were on a jury I'd not only disregard that "evidence" but I'd start looking REALLY deeply at the evidence presented and start questioning the FBI's entire case.

So there may be no protections because it's expect that no situation would arise where this would benefit anyone. Except because of how screwed up our laws are now the FBI doesn't have to get a guilty verdict. They just have to keep it tied up in the courts long enough to screw with everything related to the name "Megauploads".

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[girlintraining]

But there is something in the law that protects megaupload from this kinda BS. They complied with a search warrant and held the files on their system like FBI asked, now they are being shut down cause they kept them.

There is nothing in the law that protects them. The law is there to protect the FBI and enable it to do whatever it wants. For example, it's been legal for the past several years for evidence collected from a search warrant to be used even if the search warrant is later found to be invalid. Evidence collected without a search warrant is also admissable; The so-called "poisoned fruit" laws were struck down by our new, ultra-conservative, supreme court. And establishing probable cause has gotten a whole lot easier thanks to expansion of police powers -- for example, let's say your tail light is busted, your criminal record is totally clean, but the officer suspects you may have drugs in the vehicle. That suspicion alone is a reason to call over the K-9 unit and allow it to crawl all over, under, and around the vehicle. If it barks, that's cause to search the vehicle. And by search, I mean completely dismantle and leave on the side of the road in pieces. Oh... and you're responsible for the tow. Even if they still find nothing. Bonus: Dogs were found to only be effective about 2/3rds of the time in a recent study... and had a false positive rate of 1 in 8. In other words, 15% of the time, the dog indicated the presence of drugs when none were found (even in trace amounts).

Don't kid yourself... procedural mistakes won't derail the case. Maybe, in bygone days, the police were required to follow all laws and procedures and if they screwed up the guy walked, but not anymore. Getting tough on crime means that we now don't let little problems like a lack of evidence, or tainted evidence, get in the way of justice. And of course, then there's confessions... -_- Many of which are forced out of suspects.

The police don't care who their guy is; They just need a guy. There are no innocent people in the world anymore... there's just guilty, and not yet guilty.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if they didn't block access to the 36 files, then they were still allowing the files to be accessed and committing criminal copyright infringement. Preserving the files does not mitigate your responsibilities under the DMCA to prevent the illegal dissemination of copyrighted material. Proper compliance with the original order from the DHS might have involved preserving the files, but also blocking external access to them. In that scenario, then not only might Dotcom be guilty as charged, but he was also guilty of violating the original order for over two years.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point he's making is that this may fall under entrapment.

The police can't ask you to do something then arrest you for doing it. Entrapment can be difficult to prove, but in this case the FBI left a paper trail in the form of the original notice.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Tastecicles]

the FBI kept the investigation open. That they served the search warrant two years before they seized the computers stinks of entrapment, since it is an offence to destroy evidence pertinent to an investigation (it's called spoliation). MU didn't break the law in this case, the FBI did.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[DarwinSurvivor]

You mean like "entrapment"?

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[westlake]

But there is something in the law that protects megaupload from this kinda BS. They complied with a search warrant and held the files on their system like FBI asked, now they are being shut down cause they kept them.

The question, I suspect, is whether the files were still being offered for download.

In plain English, whether there was good faith compliance with the previous warrant, which was intended to secure the evidence, not to facilitate an on-going infringement by allowing Megaupload to keep the files on a public-facing server.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Nyder]

Possibly. It depends on how much truth there is behind both sides claims. Neither the Feds nor Kim have much credibility here, and both have a history of distorting as much truth as possible to get their way. I don't envy the ones who have to try and cut through the bullshit and figure out exactly what needs to be done.

There is a paper trail. Do you think the FBI just called up on the phone and said, "Kim, old buddy, please keep these files because we are investigating it?".

No, they send paper work. And combined with the paper work the FBI gave the court, is showing that something is funky.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA is a US law. Megaupload wasn't a US site.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[PlusFiveTroll]

The police can't ask you to do something then arrest you for doing it.

NEVER step off your property to talk to a cop if they've asked you to after you've been drinking then. Cops can arrest you for whatever they want. Anything. Whatever they think of at the time. In the worst cases you might have some comeback against the police, but in the vast majority of the cases the charges are dropped and you're kicked to the street. In the worst of the cases, you're let out of jail 30 years later because a modern look at the evidence shows you had nothing to do with it. More then a few people have sat in jail for a long time for having done nothing other then being black at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know the intent of the DHS, maybe they wanted the files available to 'catch' other violators.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Mitreya]

The so-called "poisoned fruit" laws were struck down by our new, ultra-conservative, supreme court.

[citation needed]
Seriously, I know you are not a troll, but when has the "poison fruit" law been struck down, exactly?

I think they are fine with the case falling apart, because DotCom has been punished and his business dismantled. Once his case falls apart, his servers and paying customers would still be gone as they are now. And unless someone in law enforcement is punished, such procedure can be repeated as many times as necessary (i.e. once he opens his new business venture)

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[X.25]

Possibly. It depends on how much truth there is behind both sides claims. Neither the Feds nor Kim have much credibility here, and both have a history of distorting as much truth as possible to get their way. I don't envy the ones who have to try and cut through the bullshit and figure out exactly what needs to be done.

How, exactly, you figured that Dotcom has no 'credibility'?

Pretty much everything he said since the case began was true, he didn't even need to distort anything.

Could you give me examples of the 'distortion'?

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[shentino]

1 in 8 is 12.5 percent, not 15 percent.

Turn in your geek card.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[dcollins117]

I'm still trying to figure out how the DHS got involved at all. Aren't they supposed to be preventing attacks on US soil? How does running a website in New Zealand have anything to do with "Homeland Security"?

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point he's making is that this may fall under entrapment.

The police can't ask you to do something then arrest you for doing it. Entrapment can be difficult to prove, but in this case the FBI left a paper trail in the form of the original notice.

Entrapment? OK, maybe there was entrapment, but why would the FBI even need to do that? Megaupload was swamped with freely downloadable copyrighted material. Users paying for premium access to download that stuff was Megaload's cheif source of income.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[rtfa-troll]

Entrapment? OK, maybe there was entrapment, but why would the FBI even need to do that? Megaupload was swamped with freely downloadable copyrighted material. Users paying for premium access to download that stuff was Megaload's cheif source of income.

Most likely because, any time someone gave them a correct notice, Megaupload would delete that stuff on demand. This means that what they were doing was legal under the terms of the DMCA and equivalent rules all around the world. The FBI needed a way to interfere with that process so that Megaupload would behave "illegally" so that by the time they found out about the trick, the FBI would have got some dirt on them (on the principle that everybody is guilty; they just don't know it yet).

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[rtfa-troll]

DMCA is a US law. Megaupload wasn't a US site.

The FBI is trying to charge him under US law. Without the warrant trick, the DMCA would stop them from doing that.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[fafalone]

The sad thing is you've vastly overestimated the accuracy of drug dogs. According to one study, in the field, it's under 50% for all drivers (alert resulting in finding drugs). Alerts where the driver was Hispanic was under 30% successful. In a performance test, if there was a sausage in the car, or if the handler believed there were drugs in the car, the success rate was only 14%-- that means 86% of the time the dog alerted there were no drugs found, so maybe you just got that mixed up. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/supreme-court-considers-t_1_b_2063820.html)

Another bonus: A drug dog alerting to cash you have is enough for the police to seize that cash (despite the vast majority of US currency having drugs on it), and you have a costly legal battle ahead if you want it back.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me quote from "Catch 22" by Heller:

"That's not what justice is," the colonel jeered, and began pounding the table again with his big fat hand. "That's what Karl Marx is. I'll tell you what justice is. Justice is a knee in the gut from the floor on the chin at night sneaky with a knife brought up down on the magazine of a battleship sandbagged underhanded in the dark without a word of warning. Garroting. That's what justice is when we've all got to be tough enough and rough enough to fight Billy Petrolle. From the hip. Get it?"

"No, sir."

"Don't sir me!"

"Yes, sir."

"And say ‘sir' when you don't," ordered Major Metcalf.

Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still trying to figure out how the DHS got involved at all. Aren't they supposed to be preventing attacks on US soil? How does running a website in New Zealand have anything to do with "Homeland Security"?

DHS is an umbrella organization that has gobbled up the organizations responsible for [actions against] copyright infringement (and a lot of others)...

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[TFAFalcon]

And does it even matter if he's credible? He's the accused here. If the government's job to prove (legally) that he did something wrong. If they can't do that then they are in the wrong and should be punished for the damage they caused to his business.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[Hentes]

Possibly, but since Dotcom isn't going to face the charges he can't really defend himself either.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[iggymanz]

news for you, they can step onto your property and claim they were in "hot pursuit" or had "probable cause". if they have it in for you, you're fucked. there's a reason we called them "pigs" back in the day....

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[tehcyder]

The police don't care who their guy is; They just need a guy. There are no innocent people in the world anymore... there's just guilty, and not yet guilty.

Yeah, Kim Dotcom was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time who happened to have made tens of millions off copyright infringement.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[tehcyder]

Entrapment? OK, maybe there was entrapment, but why would the FBI even need to do that? Megaupload was swamped with freely downloadable copyrighted material. Users paying for premium access to download that stuff was Megaload's cheif source of income.

Most likely because, any time someone gave them a correct notice, Megaupload would delete that stuff on demand. This means that what they were doing was legal under the terms of the DMCA and equivalent rules all around the world. The FBI needed a way to interfere with that process so that Megaupload would behave "illegally" so that by the time they found out about the trick, the FBI would have got some dirt on them (on the principle that everybody is guilty; they just don't know it yet).

Anything megaupload deleted following a DMCA request could immediately be posted again by someone else.

Most criminals are good at following the letter of the law but breaking its spirit.

Re:correct me if i'm wrong?

[rtfa-troll]

Anything megaupload deleted following a DMCA request could immediately be posted again by someone else.

Most criminals are good at following the letter of the law but breaking its spirit.

If they followed the letter of the law then they aren't criminals. That's what "law" means. To be honest, what you really mean is "most dishonest people tend to pretend to follow the letter of the law whilst actually cheating and being to stupid to shut up when they are recorded". I suspect that will get Kim in the end, but in the mean time there seems to be a major due process fail on the side of the US authorities. If they can't fix this Kim should be allowed free and the investigators and prosecutors involved should be disciplined for incompetence.

Re:You lost me right here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Special agent William Engel of the DHS issued the search warrant in 2010, but I supposed that must never have happened too, because Dotcom mentioned that?

weird article

[CHRONOSS2008]

how is it the FBI served him a warrant ...they aren't even cops in new zealand.....

Re:weird article

[arbiter1]

they served it to the hosting provider of the servers, so either with or without MU's help they were gonna get the data. MU choose to help which should give a safe harbor in this case

Re:weird article

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI didn't serve him a warrant, they got one to seize his domain names.

Why were the files still there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there need for the files to still be on the server at the time of the FBI search warrant? It is a possibility, however unlikely, that the files were no longer needed by DHS and per the terms of the warrant should have been destroyed. Again, given the current chain of events I find that to be very unlikely.

How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[bogaboga]

'When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files.' He added: '[t]he FBI used the fact the files were still in the account of the ... user to get the warrant to seize our own domains. This is outrageous.'"

So is this how things are run in "The Nation of Laws?" If whatever was done is lawful, then I rather stay put.
Someone will have a lot of work to convince me to immigrate to the USA.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, where ever will we find an immigrant willing to take your place?

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this how things are run in "The Nation of Laws?"

Who said this was a nation of laws? Oh, right, Gerald Ford, right after he pardoned his buddy Nixon for his various crimes.

Maybe over there wherever you come from you still expect your politicians to say something true when they open their mouths, rather than saying something politically expedient.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an error here. The FBI did not actually say they failed to delete files, the FBI claims Mega Conspiracy failed to prevent access to, which is what the wording of the DMCA Safe Harbor provision requires. It is very possible they could keep the files in compliance with the original DHS order, and remove access to them from the outside world in compliance with the DMCA. Failure to do this would lead to this current scenario. It is completely consistent and your lack of understanding is do to intentional misinformation from Kim Dotcom, and imprecise use of language by others.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[sumdumass]

No one ever showed Nixon committed crimes. He was pardoned before any trial or real insight to them happened. I know it's popular to claim he was a crooks, but even the real crooks claim Nixon wasn't involved and all but one claim they were going after evidence of a prostitution ring. IT should be noted, two of the agents behind the break ins were then and are still now democrats, only one of them claimed Nixon sent them or it was anything pertaining to the election. The only thing left is a gap in a recording that congress demanded- but it seems like the presidents of any party claims executive privilege all the time now so that's sort of a wash.

However, I find what happened, the FBI broke into the campaign headquarters to be little different then the current practice of democrat operatives infiltrating republican fund raisers and video or audio taping the strategies then releasing what they think might be damaging to the public.

What I'm getting at is not that Nixon was innocent or anything. It's just that there is enough plausible deniability and current situations are so close to those, it doesn't seem like any crime happened. I mean what is the difference other then technical when someone pretends to be a donor in order to gather campaign information that is secrete or embarrassing and breaking into an office for the same?

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I'm aware there's nothing criminal in posing as a donor and them being so stupid as to tell you their opinions and plans in order to get you to give them money. But it is criminal if you pick the lock, enter their office, and steal/copy the files with all that information on them. In the one case you're being given that information voluntarily, in the hope that you'll agree with it and hand over cash in return or as a return payment for cash they've already recieved. In the other you're essentially taking that information by force from an involuntary party.

There's a world of difference between the two.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this how things are run in "The Nation of Laws?"

Actually, we've become a nation of lawyers and lawsuits.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Darkness404]

No point in ever coming to the US, we've got an increasingly corrupt police state, high rates of theft (taxation), and a dying currency. Mix that with several wars we've fought/are fighting that we can't pay for, a large portion dependent on welfare (in various forms) and you've got the exact same recipe for collapse that the Roman empire did.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[sumdumass]

Well, in one case, the information is subversively being given by a con- a simple misrepresentation of person and intent. In the other, it's breaking and entering or as the law would claim, searching without a warrant which can be legal in certain limited situations. Up until recently, the thing that made it so important was the fact that campaign strategy was accessible. No one was ever caught with it, nor was any of it offered as evidence. It's one of the rare cases where a cop breaks the law and gets busted like normal people would. There are tons of instances where cops illegally search places and do not even get a slap on their wrist.

There isn't much more difference between the two other then how it happened. Breaking and entering or conning your way to access. It is probably an interesting debate that should be had. I mean was Nixon really that bad when the FBI broke into a building or what Nixon bad because they gained access to secrete campaign strategy that wouldn't have had access to. Is getting access to this secrete campaign strategy still something that is bad, or is it par for the course and we need to stop demonizing Nixon.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[TubeSteak]

the current practice of democrat operatives infiltrating republican fund raisers and video or audio taping the strategies then releasing what they think might be damaging to the public.

I mean what is the difference other then technical when someone pretends to be a donor in order to gather campaign information that is secrete or embarrassing and breaking into an office for the same?

First off, "damaging" and "embarrassing" are not crimes.
I just thought I'd point this out since you mentioned the idea more than once.
And if information is being freely given to donors, then it certainly isn't secret.

Secondly, if you really don't understand the practical difference between trespassing and theft, then your opinion on anyone's crimes is probably less than insightful.

Lastly, I assume you were referring to Romney's comments about 47% of Americans being unwilling to take personal responsibility for their lives.
That wasn't a strategy, it was the kind of unfounded nonsense that plutocrats tell each other when they think the hoi polloi aren't listening.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[sumdumass]

First off, "damaging" and "embarrassing" are not crimes.
I just thought I'd point this out since you mentioned the idea more than once.
And if information is being freely given to donors, then it certainly isn't secret.

Then the only thing wrong in Watergate was the break in right? I mean that is what they would have found at best, damaging and embarrassing in the watergate break ins. They shared the information with their donors too. In fact, that was what the prostitution ring was supposed to have been about, they coordinated prostitutes to sleep with donors and certain congress critters in order to get support for their guy.

Secondly, if you really don't understand the practical difference between trespassing and theft, then your opinion on anyone's crimes is probably less than insightful.

Perhaps you don't know what watergate was? It was about more then tresspass or theft. To boil it down to that sort of makes my entire point. If the rest doesn't matter, then it isn't as bad as people are making it out to be.

Lastly, I assume you were referring to Romney's comments about 47% of Americans being unwilling to take personal responsibility for their lives.
That wasn't a strategy, it was the kind of unfounded nonsense that plutocrats tell each other when they think the hoi polloi aren't listening.

lol.. To you have a comprehension problem or something? Romney's comment was how he was going to spend the contributions- he wasn't going to bother with the other 47% because they will never vote for him, they will never take responsibility for themselves. If that is not strategy, I do not know what it. I mean catering your campaign to specific people and not certain people for whatever reason is nothing but strategy. Maybe you should go troll somewhere else? The 47% comment was made completely about how he was going to spend the donations they gave and why. That is strategy plain and simple.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this how things are run in "The Nation of Laws?"

This is how things are run in the The nation of the biggest guns. Political expediency has always come from military might. The USA is becoming materially unimportant and is using its 'big guns' to hold on to the 'King of the mountain' title.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[rtfa-troll]

If this was a matter of preserving the actual files, the FBI could simply download them and preserve them themselves (they are allowed to do that kind of thing in gathering evidence). The only reasonable reason they would need to keep the files in place would be to prove who was downloading them. In this case, blocking access would be interfering with that.

Now, it's theoretically possible that they meant "please preserve the access information for the files and the data whilst blocking downloading because we are so incompetent we can't do it ourselves". However, if they didn't make that 100% clear then they are fully responsible for the consequences.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nation of Laws?

Must be a transcription error. Mine reads "Nation of Lawyers".

Sad.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't choose the US. Choose a nice and friendly european country. It's not perfect, but far less corporate-infected. We still at least try to do thing "the proper way", starting on the way how we build our houses (not cheap wood and crappy windows, but strong isolation, proper roofs and basement).
Hell, even choose a scandinavian country, they have lots of space, lots of diversity (only to name beer, heavy metal and jazz, lots of snow if you like, mild summers, pretty and open-minded girls, delicious sea food, ...) and very friendly and relaxed people all around.
Or choose Iceland which managed the banking crisis in the only sensible way!

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think even VISIT the USA.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, really we are not. We are a nation of court cases. You can even write a law, have the people vote on the law, but then it takes just one person to take said law to court, and with a good lawyer, get it overturned. You can get away with just about anything in the right court with the right lawyers. Nations of Laws my butt! Anyone who believes that is delusional.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Swampash]

The "Nation of Laws" got acquired in a leveraged buyout sometime in the 60s. In today's America, if the corporations take notice of you... you're fucked.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone will have a lot of work to convince me to immigrate to the USA.

Newsflash!

You are not wanted in America. Stay the fuck out.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't do this.

They ask the hosting provider to make a copy *AND* retain the data until they are through.

I think this is so they in effect have a 'backup copy' - and also,
if there are more related things you might be able to find later, so that they can ask you to do that (think crime scene tape)

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the DMCA made it 100% clear that there should no longer be any external access. You don't get advised of your obligations under all laws every time you are served with a search warrant, you are expected to be a good member of society and obey other existing laws, and they continued to break the law thus sacrificing their DMCA immunity.

This is of course forgetting that there are all sorts of reasonable reasons for them to keep the files in place other than to prove who was downloading them (such as to allow the defense an opportunity to conduct their own forensic examination). Your logic is seriously questionable, and your phrasing a bit too colloquial to be taken seriously.

Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?"

[rtfa-troll]

No, the DMCA made it 100% clear that there should no longer be any external access.

This was not a DMCA takedown notice (N.B. not a warrant). It was a warrant in an ongoing investigation. That is completely different and taking any action without direct instructions from the police can be considered as destruction of evidence.

Newcrime

[Anonymous Coward]

The trial is the punishment.

You can't allow the crime to continue....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no fan of the FBI/DHS/Fuzz or the MPAA/RIAA, but I'm not really sure how this claim is relevant. The original warrant was served in pursuit of NinjaVideo by the Department of Homeland Security, whereas it was the FBI that conducted the criminal investigation into Dotcom. The FBI didn't necessarily act in bad faith, they simply may not have known about the warrant. Also, the NinjaVideo case had been fully adjudicated by the time of the raid on MegaUpload so I'm not really sure how they can claim they were still protecting the evidence after the conclusion of the case.

Furthermore, and most basically, one can be instructed to preserve evidence of another's prior wrong doing, as well as to be used in the future against oneself. And, in preserving the files and evidence for the NinjaVideo case, they may have also allowed other uploaders to upload the file, and share new links against those 36 files. If that is indeed the case, MegaUpload could have simultaneously been complying with the DHS order, and, violating the DMCA Safe Harbor provision by allowing continued access to the files from links not related to the NinjaVideo case. Preserving the evidence of a past crime does not mitigate your responsibility if you continue to allow further crimes to be committed using said preserved element.

Dotcom is once again attempting to distort reality to his benefit, and painting a simple and erroneous, but easily repeated picture to mask the more subtle truth. All of these convictions generally rely on the subtle truth; an email somewhere where someone admitted their knowledge, a few files not appropriately scrubbed, or a financial transaction that is just a little too questionable. It's very difficult to present a coherent position of why a site like MegaUpload/MegaVideo should be allowed to exist, and what this guy was doing was charging subscriptions for access to content that he did not have the right to distribute. What he did was wrong, and the US government potential mishandling of the situation does not absolve Dotcom of his own individual wrong doing.

Re:You can't allow the crime to continue....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very difficult to present a coherent position of why a site like MegaUpload/MegaVideo should be allowed to exist

It is? Because they did nothing more than allowed people to copy files. Because the DMCA is, for the most part, trash.

Re:You can't allow the crime to continue....

[rtfa-troll]

It's very difficult to present a coherent position of why a site like MegaUpload/MegaVideo should be allowed to exist.

Oh yeah. How about the very simple:

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed.

This is a fundamental constitutional principle inherited from English law into both US and New Zealand law. Fine, you can claim that Megaupload was illegal. However, if you want to stop it you have to actually prove that. It's not enough to just state it. The FBI seems to be deeply failing to do so.

Re:You can't allow the crime to continue....

[Anonymous Coward]

What Mega did was expressly forbidden and now they are trying to jurisdiction shop their way out of the case. Furthermore, I don't see that the FBI has been failing to make its case at all. The Mega Conspiracy is still under indictment in the US and there have been no material blows to the case. This latest "development" is only damaging to the FBI's case if you fundamentally alter the language involved and intentionally misrepresent both the facts of US law and the search warrant Mega was served with. Any attorney would look at these claims and immediately know this defense does not pass muster. If you have read the US indictment, it is very strong and surprisingly detailed; it appears they are aware of how difficult it is to actually prove what someone did crossed the threshold between civilly liable and criminally felonious, and if they have the evidence they say they have, it will be very difficult for Dotcom to get off if he ever stands trial.

My main question, is why is Dotcom is continuing to fight extradition, and only delaying his opportunity to exonerate himself in US courts if he is innocent? If you are granted the privilege of a US criminal trial, the proceedings are exceedingly fair. We even went so far as to bar critical evidence against a prolific terrorist from being used against him because it was obtained through physical interrogation. The information was later independently verified, but because of its tainted source, it was barred. If we treat a Ahmed Ghaliani with such respect for the rule of law, any allegation without significant further evidence that a US Federal Court would be incapable of properly adjudicating this case is simply nonsense. The problem is that he and his lawyers know that what he and the members of his team did is illegal under US law, so they are trying every maneuver possible to prevent them from being subject to it. However, if nothing else, actions were performed at their direction within the US, and they will be held to answer for their crimes.

Re:You can't allow the crime to continue....

[Anonymous Coward]

My main question, is why is Dotcom is continuing to fight extradition, and only delaying his opportunity to exonerate himself in US courts if he is innocent? If you are granted the privilege of a US criminal trial, the proceedings are exceedingly fair.

Hilarious.

Re:You can't allow the crime to continue....

[rtfa-troll]

[..] in the US [..] US law [..] US indictment [..] US courts [..] US criminal trial [..] US Federal Court [..] US law [..] US.

Yes; I think we get your point.

I want to introduce you to this new concept; "independent sovereign countries"; Kim was living in New Zealand. He is subject to New Zealand law. Only if New Zealand law says he should be subject to US law can US law apply. So far he NZ judge has said that that has not been demonstrated, and in fact the investigating authorities seem to be criminals who have broken New Zealand law. If that is true then they should be in jail and Mr. Dotcom should walk free.

I rather suspect that KDC is fighting extradition because that's the way due process works. It's embarrassing to find myself having to support him, but that's he way it is if you want the rule of law and not the rule of corporations.

Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story ...

[raymorris]

Hidden at the bottom of the story, in internal emails Mega said they had 2,000 users with those 39 infringing files. They weren't supposed to delete the NinjaVideo account, but what about the other 1,999? If you believe one side is right, why not tell the truth about why that side is right? Why the need to mislead and lie? (Answer - writers try to mislead users users like tnat when they know the truth isn't on their side.)

Faux outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

He was ordered to preserve the files, not make them available for download. Can you imagine him telling a judge "well they told me to preserve the evidence so I left it available on this account and lots of others for download and this was because they told me to preserve the evidence".

Seriously, can you imagine a judge swallowing it?

He knew what he was doing, he'll face jail time.

Re:Faux outrage

[berashith]

I think there was a judge swallowing it in one of these movies that the article is talking about.

Imprecise Language: Delete vs. Prevent Access

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI did not actually say Mega failed to delete files, the FBI claims Mega Conspiracy failed to prevent access to these 36 files, which is what the wording of the DMCA Safe Harbor provision requires companies do in order to be able to assert immunity. It is very possible that the Mega Conspiracy could keep the files in compliance with the original DHS order, and remove access to them from the outside world in compliance with the DMCA. Keeping the files, but failing to remove access to them would lead to this current scenario.

Unfortunately, Kim Dotcom would rather rely on a turn of phrase and imprecise language to paint the easily repeatable image that the FBI are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They're not. Preserving evidence for criminal prosecution does not remove your criminal responsibility if you allow the elements you are preserving to be used for criminal purposes in the future. It's sort of like the DHS saying "don't destroy that Meth lab on your property, we need to use it as evidence" and then crying foul when the FBI prosecutes you for allowing others access to use the meth lab and cook drugs.

Hope this helps clear up the absurdity; its all just a reality distortion from Dotcom.

Re:Imprecise Language: Delete vs. Prevent Access

[symbolset]

In the law, ignoring a "turn of phrase" in a court order is called "contempt of court".

Re:Imprecise Language: Delete vs. Prevent Access

[cheekyjohnson]

Preserving evidence for criminal prosecution does not remove your criminal responsibility if you allow the elements you are preserving to be used for criminal purposes in the future.

Yeah, criminal purposes like... copying. This, the FBI, and the DMCA all seem extremely pathetic.

Re:Imprecise Language: Delete vs. Prevent Access

[Anonymous Coward]

The language of the search warrant does not allow for further illegal activity to occur, other than potentially the existence of the files on the server. Overbroadly interpreting the scope of the order exposes you to liability, and at this point two years later, by lack of raising the concern about their interpretation of the order, Dotcom is estopped from claiming it as a defense.

Re:Imprecise Language: Delete vs. Prevent Access

[boarder8925]

Unfortunately, Kim Dotcom would rather rely on a turn of phrase and imprecise language....

So, kind of exactly like what the government does, then.

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

The article also said the other accounts were just links to the same files. MegaUpload looks at the hashes and when a file is uploaded that is identical to something it already has, it would de-duplicate it and just link.

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article (instead of accusing us of not reading the article ...?) you'd see the following text:

The Megaupload system identified files which were already on the system and kept only one copy of each.

They couldn't delete "the other 1,999" because there weren't any. Furthermore, the FBI initiated action in 2012 based on the existence of the files on Megaupload's harddrives, not based "the other 1,999" users.

Why the need to mislead? I think you better ask yourself that question.

And this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

...secret warrants are a danger to a free and open society.

Heck, in the US, the fact that a warrant was served AT ALL could be considered a "national secret."

The point was never to make a case

[Anonymous Coward]

They shut it down and fucked up Dotcom's life/business. That was the goal. Making a case would have been a bonus. Joke's on them, 2.0 is going to be even harder to nail legally or otherwise since NZ will likely be more hesitant to cooperate.

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Baloroth]

You expect me to believe that Megaupload couldn't not-link those other 1,999 people to those files? Really? Maybe they had to keep the files, but they certainly didn't have to allow a bunch of other people to create links to and download it.

The FBI fight crime at any cost

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI will fight crime at any cost, even if they have to break the law to do it. In this case though, they are acting very much more on behalf of the content industry. Justice might be blind and impartial, but no one ever gave the impression (let alone offered a claim) that the FBI was impartial. Against all other available evidence, if they think someone is guilty, they will fabricate if they have to in order to bring them to justice! GUILTY!

Re:The FBI fight crime at any cost

[Tastecicles]

The FBI are NOT above the Law! First and foremost, they are bound by the US Constitution. Secondly, they are bound by domestic Law, and for operation outside the borders, by International Law. Yes, they routinely break and violate and basically arserape all three jurisdictions, and they get away with it. Why? BECAUSE NOBODY IS SAYING TO THEM, "STOP! WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!"

Re:The FBI fight crime at any cost

[Anonymous Coward]

BECAUSE NOBODY IS SAYING TO THEM, "STOP! WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!"

The people's voice is meant to be carried by the media, who are not doing their job. This is another way another way of saying 'The first casualty in war is the truth'. So who are the civilian FBI warring against?

Re:The FBI fight crime at any cost

[Anonymous Coward]

And because nobody is adding: "OR WE WILL HANG YOU!"

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the files were part of an investigation they could touch them at all, not even the other links, without getting into legal issues. What if they deleted the other links and ninjavideo noticed they were the only ones still with valid links?

USA - where criminals rule the country

[Anonymous Coward]

USA - where criminals rule the country

Not anymore.

[boorack]

Sould their sales tank, they'd just request federal bailout and you would pay them through your taxes. Or they'd push a low through congress that would make NOT buying their crapola products for two months in a row a felony. They don't need to do this YET as most of people are still dumbed down consumers - just look at some of black friday fiascos on youtube. Welcome to brave new, post-2008 corporate-fascist world.

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[bloodhawk]

That is purely a fallacious excuse megaupload tried to use. Nothing was preventing them from removing the links to the other 1999 files, the files would not have been deleted or altered in any way.

And this surprises you why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I am sure that MegaUpload is no saint here. But really, they are surprised by this? This is an entity of the federal governement we are talking about here.

39 files? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey - FBI - if this entire case, travel to NZ, and everything is about 39 files, then you need to stop and get back to work doing something useful. Perhaps stopping killers and kidnappers instead?

How many people, citizens, of the USA really want this case going? Hardly any, I can assure you.

You know, my copywrited webblog has been stolen over 50 times - just let google search for it. When will the FBI seize those servers and go after those companies stealing my works? I'd like to know.

source

[Tom]

Kim Dotcom says his team has evidence

To everyone who whined about how evil the law is: Keep in mind who said this. It's hard to think of a more biased source, isn't it?

This is newsworthy once the alleged evidence is shown. Prior to that, it's just "one side of a conflict claims the other is evil", which is probably the most non-newsworthy thing you can imagine aside from "sun rose this morning".

Re:source

[tramp]

FBI saying the opposite is hardly more credible then Kim Dotcom, I do not trust both of them. It would be newsworthy if they found a trustworthy government agency or a trustworthy politican or laywer.

Re:source

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know all suspects say they are innocent. We know better, even if they can prove they didn't do it they are guilty of some crime right?

Re:source

[Tom]

No, we don't know better. We don't know, which is the whole point of the whole thing.

If he has evidence, he should show it. Otherwise, it's just talk. Talk is cheap.

Re:source

[Tom]

Exactly.

Except for one thing: A trustworthy politician or lawyer would be a newsworthy item all by itself. ;-)

Re:source

[tehcyder]

FBI saying the opposite is hardly more credible then Kim Dotcom, I do not trust both of them. It would be newsworthy if they found a trustworthy government agency or a trustworthy politican or laywer.

The cynicism of 13 year olds gets quite tiresome after a while.

However...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the whole this mess finally collapses they will take the FBI et all to the cleaners for compensation.

Those 'lost' customers are only a few clicks away and these will be the guys that stood up to the might of the FBI.

and in the new Century

[Martin Spamer]

The government will be bought and paid for by ...

1) Old Media
2) New Media

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you can't guarantee that some of the other 1999 weren't legitimate rightsholders. Say 2 people upload a zip of a set of the same photos to megaupload. One is the original rightsholder, the other is someone who stole a copy. The former can issue a DMCA takedown notice against the latter, and should not expect his own photos to disappear off his account.

Granted, it's extraordinarily unlikely that when you're talking full movies that the original rightsholder uploaded them to megaupload, but because you can't say for certain, safe harbor provisions meant that even with deduplication, those other 1999 possibly infringing users still get to keep the movie up there. Now, one way would be to change the law to state that if deduplication is done, when a DMCA takedown request is received, that a second requirement is to notify the sender of the request of the links of all the other copies so they can investigate and possibly send other takedown requests.

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it? Did every user of that file have the same link, or unique links? My understanding is that they held a single copy of that file, instead of 2000 separate copies from those 2000 users. If they all used the same link breaking one link would in fact break them all, or address the fact that the FBI is charging them with having the files at all. I'm not saying which method MU used, I don't know. Also if the government was looking to send out notices to the people that were downloading the files they would want the links still active to check.

Fuck him.

[UltraZelda64]

Seriously, who gives a shit? Just a quick search on this guy shows that he deserves whatever he gets. He has a history of breaking the law and moving to different countries to run from the government. Not to mention, he is filthy rich and can just keep doing it--over and over again--which he seems to be doing. Most people who break the law don't exactly have that luxury, so why should this dick?

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, because of the way Mega's system worked with hashing of files and using only one copy, and the specific phrasing of the DMCA, they would need to eliminate all access to that one file in order to remain eligible for Safe Harbor, including those of legitimate rights holders.

Now, the real problem with your thought experiment, is that there is no possible legitimate rights holder for some of these files, like a CAM of a particular movie (I'd have to go re-read the indictment to name a specific file). Its not even an off-site backup of a DVD, its a file which by its very existence is illegal. So my point is that on some of the files they cite, and perhaps on all, you can say for certain that no one has the right to the file.

Furthermore, its unclear to me who you think would have legitimate rights, such as an off-site dvd backup, but would then also have the rights to make that file publicly available to others, as was the case with the files discussed in the indictment and uploaded to MegaVideo.

By utilizing de-duplication, Mega decided to play with fire; and they got burned. The existing law is sufficient to prosecute them for their actions.

Re:You lost me right here:

[tehcyder]

"According to an article on the New Zealand Herald, Kim Dotcom says..." Uh huh.

Careful, you're not allowed to attack that slimy fucking con man on slashdot. He's become a sort of modern day Robin Hood here, stealing from the rich to give to...himself.

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not even an off-site backup of a DVD, its a file which by its very existence is illegal.

Are you saying that Universal Pictures are not allowed to have a crappy copy of a movie produced by Universal Pictures?

Not "would want to", but actually illegal for them to have it. How about the producer of the movie? Do you know for sure he didn't have an account there?

Unlikely sure, but that's not the same of "by its very existence is illegal".

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're misunderstanding the nature of the system. They aren't creating links, they're uploading the files again, these files contribute no additional space to the system, as they aren't unique. It's quite possible they would need to change their database structure to allow for the requested accounts and files to be retained undisturbed in the system while at the same banning them (ie: the database wasn't set up to handle both occurrences at the same time, such as file is either in the good data section or the banned pool. If the need for both to exist at the same time was never foreseen, it would be poor design to allow it to occur as it would allow for database redundancy which is a source of errors and the number one thing to optimize against).

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[Anonymous Coward]

By utilizing de-duplication, Mega decided to play with fire; and they got burned.

Not using de-duplication schemes would cause their data storage needs to stretch by several orders of magnitude. De-duplication is the backbone of compression, without it many modern digital conveniences like high definition video, or file hosting would be technologically not feasible. There is NO practical alternative to employing de-duplication at some level when you are as big as Mega Upload was

no real case...

[schlachter]

Not to mention that even if they hadn't broken any regulations, there doesn't appear to be a real case against MegaUpload. At least not more so than dropbox, youtube, or any other file upload site.

billions...

[schlachter]

Based on what I've heard about MegaUpload revenues...damages could be in the billions.

Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story .

[omnichad]

Well, the actual camming job would be an original work. Perhaps not distinct enough from the original to grant it copyright protection, but it would be an illegal derivative work. But theoretically, the wobbling of the camera is a creative expression.