Slashdot Mirror
US DOJ Claims It Did Not Entrap Megaupload
angry tapir writes "The U.S. Department of Justice did not mislead a court and attempt to entrap file storage site Megaupload on copyright infringement charges, the agency said in a new filing in the case. Megaupload's charges that the DOJ conspired to entrap the site on criminal copyright charges are 'baseless,' an official with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia wrote in a court document filed last week. Earlier this month, Megaupload filed court documents saying that in 2010 the DOJ asked the site, through its hosting vendor, to keep infringing files as part of a DOJ investigation, then later charged Megaupload with copyright infringement."
And I didn't have sexual relations with that woman!
So their argument is basically "It was entrapment because you didn't let us delete the infringing files before the trial"?
"Well your honor, the DOJ said we should 'keep' the evidence, and we thought that meant, distribute it through myriad of links, some of which we created to keep it alive.... so we were the victims of entrapment, and by entrapment, I mean intentionally pretending to misunderstanding something in order to try to create outrage from the headlines that might swing a decision in our favor."
Only the logs will tell... Wasn't the claim by Kim Dotcom that the DOJ requested to host on his network files pertaining to copyright infringement and then, a year or so later, busted him for copyright infringement and took his network down? His smoking gun is the communiqué between his company and the DOJ and the log files of said uploads and access, which are on the servers the DOJ took, which are probably no longer there... ...and the cycle continues. Honestly if I was on that jury I would acquit due to lack of undeniable evidence... Yes, megaupload servers hosted some copyright infringement material, is Megaupload responsible? Absolutely not, unless they themselves uploaded the content. It was written in the user agreement NOT to use the service for hosting of copyright material so it's a matter of finding the users responsible and punish them... oh, sorry, right, that would require actual detective work, of which the DOJ has forgotten how to do.
They would say that wouldn't they.
don't know whether it is true or not, but it is not exactly entrapment when the investigating body asks you to continue doing something illegal while they investigate, but it could be some sort of 'under color of authority' deal where it is not right for police to tell you to do something (or continue to do something) illegal either.
Of course, if MU were already hosting illegal materials before this point then they were presumably still/already infringing....but along with some pretty questionable co-operation by NZ authorities this case may not be looking too good...
-I'm just sayin'
There was no due process involved in that case. If the court was not misled, then the court is corrupt and had knowledge of what was going on when the warrants were issued.
Atrocious.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Didn't follow the damm law either.
if you wan't to fight crime i think you need to start in your own ranks first. Everyone involved in this little episode of illegality deserves to goto jail.
It's ironic the biggest criminals in this case... Were the people making the case. Broke actual long standing laws internationally. Not iffy 'infringment' things you could argue either way.
The government lies and gets caught all the time. There is almost zero recourse for it.
Here is as much recourse as I have ever seen and I have looked:
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf
JJ
You get these kinds of problems with criminal copyright infringement charges from the federal government: they are subject to political pressures by various powerful industry groups, they have extremely high costs for the targets even if unsuccessful, but the people responsible can't be held accountable. Criminal penalties for copyright infringement should just be abolished; they serve no useful purpose.
You don't need to put quotes around the word baseless if it's used in its proper context. Yes, even if it was their exact wording.
This is a non-event - prosecutors basically never admit error, until they are forced to.
On this subject, there is a White House petition to Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz.
your credibility ended long ago.
The difference is minimal... offenders of imaginary property are jailed in, rich and powerful are bailed out. See? Barely any difference.
Dotcom's claims were only "baseless" in the sense that they were not base and evil, unlike the DOJ's behavior in this case.
So my choice is to believe the US DOJ or Kim Dotcom? You're fucking kidding me? Can't we just give them both clubs and let them beat each other to death? Either way it comes out I think the world would be a better place.
Correction it is not theft as the original owner still has his copy it is copyright infringement, other wise you are steeling every time you use a photocopier
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
I'd argue rather than entrapment that the DoJ has compelled Dotcom to testify against itself
"you're hosting files that violate the DMCA! You're under arrest!"
Hosting, as in distributing it as a copyright violation.
""don't delete any files that are reported to be DMCA violations."
Delete as in delete.
So the Megaupload claim rests on an idea that if you don't delete a file, you must then distribute it over the internet. A false dichotomy. It's quite a ludicrous claim, and the comments in this thread show a lot of people want this play on words to have substance, but it doesn't.
No judge will go along with that, the DMCA is a TAKEDOWN notice, not a delete evidence notice. This is a PR thing, not a legal thing, it's not for a judge, it's to make headlines which might (like Slashdot summary) might conflate deleting a file, with hosting and distributing a file.
This conundrum seems to be pretty simple if you think about "evidence" versus "a business model."
If the government tells you NOT to delete infringing content -- that doesn't mean you have to MAKE IT AVAILABLE. So it really isn't a contradiction for the government is they go after files that got a DMCA take down notice but were still available for download.
If they made the issue about "don't delete" and then penalize them for not deleting -- that's pretty stupid, and they've killed their case.
It seems strange that someone is actually getting paid to enforce laws and yet makes such really obvious mistakes. Such incompetence will probably embolden copyright violators.
Reminds me of the scene from Raising Arizona; "You just told me to Freeze, if'n I raise my hands, I'll be moving, and if I freeze, I can't raise my hands..."
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Aaron Swartz committed a service violation that resulted in the loss of that service to thousands of other law abiding users for several days DO NOT FORGET.
He is no martyr, he was a punk and got popped for pilfering paid for content in order to "liberate it"
You steal, you steal. Doing electronically makes it wire-fraud.
Don't want to go to PMITAP? Don't commit wire-fraud.
Oh, well that's worth 35 years..... it's worse than rape.
It's sad, but I don't believe anything our government says anymore.
Given the corrupt stench pervading this whole sorry affair, I'm finding it hard to believe anything coming from the prosecution.
In the film "Guys and Dolls" a gangster named Big Julie wants to play craps with some other gangsters, but he wants to use some blank dice that all the pips have rubbed off of. But one of Big Julie's goons says it is ok, because Big Julie remembers where the pips were, and anyone who does not trust Big Julie on this should allow himself to get measured for a cement overcoat.
Surprisingly, Big Julie's luck with these dice is a great winning streak, and it seems he cannot lose no matter what.
The US-DOJ == Big Julie.
Read the filing, they deduped the files, so 50 links to the same file were links to one file.
As long as one link existed, the file was kept.
When they lost files, they created their own links.
The legal claim shows an email trail showing clear knowledge of these actions.
When a DMCA claim was requested, they'd take down the individual link, which isn't a takedown of copyright material.
So no, they didn't comply with DMCA requests, they certainly didn't stop hosting any infringing file reported.
He was killed non the less.
The files were found to be accessible from the site long after the order.
Preserving data doesn't mean you also have to let others download it.
Megaupload has no leg to stand on.
Just admit it USA. You Suck.
Stay the fuck out the rest of the world.
You really should read the indictment:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/20/heres-the-full-72-page-megaupload-doj-indictment/
It's clear what MegaUpload did, it's also clear the DOJ has him banged to rights because he used US based email for his communications and they have it all.
"why DOJ didn't pursue any charges"
They *are* pursuing charges.
"Your explanations keep seeming more and more like conspiracy theories"
No, you just want to mislead. The indictment is clear, the evidence they have is extensive, it is way beyond copyright infringement and they have him nailed.
This is why they're going for ludicrous claims like the one in this story. Designed not to make a plausible case to a judge, but rather to make headlines in the (desperate) hope of a political intervention.
Sad really, when this comes to court, these PR-games always count against a defendant.
The government lies and gets caught all the time. There is almost zero recourse for it.
That second sentence there is the #1 argument for libertarianism. Not that private stuff is always better or more efficient, but when things go wrong with the government, they really can go wrong. And there's not much you can do about it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And in other news, ancient romans claim they didn't kill Jesus.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
So without a government what the fuck does a private citizen do when another citizen with more guys with guns on their side does them wrong? Guess what - there's not much you can do about it, apart from banding together with others, and guess what, forming something like a government so you can have something like the rule of law.
WTF is it with you selfish anarchists wrapping up in a flag and taking the name of Liberty in vain?
Yeah yeah, DOJ sucks.
Bunch of old farts who think they are god.
Biggest bunch of crooks ever.
Oh and your a bunch of lazy slack old shits in diapers, who dont know what work is. Lets hope the depression hits hard, and you loose your jobs and wifes coz your so poor.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
They are the most over paid evil pathetic twats on earth.
Its like windows ME
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Yeah accidentally, by inviting 50 people for a party, get the drunkest guy piss on the server.
Whooops, some guy fried the RAID5 server. Awww, so sorry.
Do not trust the DOJ ever.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
1. he would send the cops to hell but thats another story.
But man, drinking is not the same as LSD or pot.
"Drunk" is such a grey term, you can have 10 beers in 4 hrs, but still have a sane mind and make safe decisions.
Starting the battery to heat up, is not the same.
What must one do? Turn the car on, and take the tires off?
Face it, its a thought pre-crime. She didnt drive, she might do. Yeah, the cop could also steal evidence cash bundles, lets arrest the cop, because he COULD break the law.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Agreed. I think GP has libertarianism confused with anarchy. He's calling in to question the ability of a government to enforce its laws. But don't let that stop you from attacking his strawman. He was probably trolling for that response anyway just to further this meme that wanting marriage equality (please don't confuse me with a farm animal, although knowing that Republicans see me as a farm animal has given me wise advice where I spend my hard earned cash), legal and taxed industrial marijuana cultivation, balanced budgets (srsly wtf), at least non-imperialism, elimination of the useless income tax (protip, the 1% don't have "incomes" so we're right back in 1870 and no income tax will fix that), etc all are a sign of anarchy and a destruction of the one true American Way.
Let me bring this back on topic. What about returning copyrights to their LIMITED time and putting our government back in its place as subservient to its own laws? Oops, must be anarchy.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
The same folks that were going to send a script kiddie to PMITA prison for more years than murderers for downloading publicly-funded research papers? The same folks that would rather storm-trooper raid medicinal marijuana stores than even investigate the crooked bankers that destablized the world economy?
Believe them? Nope; not anymore.
Internet Lobby that is powerful as the Gun Lobby.
You are not allowed to operate a vehicle when drunk. Starting the car is operating it.
She could've drunkenly removed the handbrake or put it into gear, or she could've just been flat out lying (the reason this is a specific definition of DUI is to prevent drunk drivers pulling into a car park and claiming they never drove the car anywhere).
As for your second, completely made up example. Why exactly is your car being broken into something the police need to rush to? There's no crime in progress, there's no risk to life, it's unlikely they'll catch the guy whether they arrive 10 minutes or 2 days after. Your second example is a crime in progress with a realistic chance of catching the person committing it.
Because lots of drunk drivers would use the loophole of claiming not to be driving the vehicle when the police found them to try to escape prosecution.
The "loophole" is that they were in fact not driving? Not sure I get what your point is here.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
This country is retarded, I'm so glad I got out.
But only in Pittsburg (note - 1891 spelling) :-)
Big organizations never know what is going on - that is normal.... but the DOJ NEVER ADMITS MISTAKES. Actually prosecutors themselves never can admit error unless ordered by a judge to do so - they have egos the size of medical specialists (and its more unwarranted.)
For a moment, I thought you were just going to paste a link to wikileaks... which would also be proof enough that the government (or any government on earth really) is basically in a constant state of lying.
Your post has nothing to do with what I wrote.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Anarchism is nothing more than holding the government to the same standards as the people, recognizing that the government is nothing more than a bunch of people.
Good government is nothing more than a bunch of people banding together out of anarchy to keep others from abusing power, without in turn abusing their own power.
Anarchy is the mathematical limit of good government. The better a government is -- the more it wards off abuses of power without committing them itself -- the more like an ideal anarchy the resulting society looks. The worse a government -- the more it permits, or worse still commits, abuses of power -- the less like an ideal anarchy the resulting society looks.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Dumb-fuck thinks that copyright infringement is the same as theft and deserves a harsher punishment than murder and rape.
Oh really? Let's take another look.
See other posts by phantomfive about what he calls libertarianism to see exactly what he means when he takes that second sentence for the #1 argument for his desires. No strawman, just the opinions of a man.
Do you disagree with that? For some reason you seem to think the natural solution to that problem is anarchy, at least it was the conclusion you jumped on, because I sure didn't imply that. There's something wrong with your head.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Looks a bit different when considered honestly and in context doesn't it?
Are you really too spineless to stand up for what you are writing? How would you cope in your libertarian society where there is no government to protect you if you won't even stand up for yourself?
Sorry to blow your dumbed down doublplusgood idiocracy bubble, but there's also observation, plus other things that make up a process including feedback from others, repeatability etc, but that doesn't fit into a nice neat little quote that is so mutilated that the person that said it would spin in his grave.