Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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?
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.
The trial is the punishment.
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.
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
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.)
I think there was a judge swallowing it in one of these movies that the article is talking about.
In the law, ignoring a "turn of phrase" in a court order is called "contempt of court".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
What's to understand? It's a series of tubes, right? Let's craft some legislation!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
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.
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?
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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).
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.
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?
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
So, kind of exactly like what the government does, then.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
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!"
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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?
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:
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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
USA - where criminals rule the country
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.
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.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
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.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The government will be bought and paid for by ...
1) Old Media
2) New Media
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
[..] 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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
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.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Based on what I've heard about MegaUpload revenues...damages could be in the billions.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
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.
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.