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."

21 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Bill Clinton by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I didn't have sexual relations with that woman!

    1. Re:Bill Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Godwin, really?

      GP was just providing an example of a another lie that was just as unbelievable in both its veracity and its outrageousness.

      Let's see a show of hands of how many actually believe that the MPAA/RIAA, um, I mean USA government acted legally, legitimately and in good faith?

  2. He said/She said by gabereiser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Huh? by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nope. Their argument is that they couldn't lawfully delete evidence once the DOJ made them aware that their servers were under investigation.

  4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They were asked to keep the files for an unrelated case. Then they were raided, and charge with copyright infringement for having the files the DOJ had earlier asked them to keep.

  5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, it's entrapment because the DOJ said "Keep the files" then charged them with crimes for keeping the files. It's like when a police officer tells a drunk person to move their car, then when they do they arrest them for a DUI (and yes, this does happen). Dumb as shit, but hey, that's America!

  6. US DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. federal copyright enforcement by stenvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Huh? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly.

    "The government cannot, on one hand, tell a U.S. court under penalty of perjury in seeking the cooperation of Megaupload in a search warrant they wanted to prevent evidence destruction of alleged infringing content files, and then, on the other hand, complain to a different court under penalty of perjury that Megaupload is a criminal for not destroying such files," Rothken said in an email.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Megaupload always had a policy of "if you report a DMCA violating file to us, we will delete it."

    The DOJ basically told them, "don't delete any files that are reported to be DMCA violations."

    A year later, the DOJ goes to Megaupload and says "you're hosting files that violate the DMCA! You're under arrest!"

    Now, Megaupload is saying "we were hosting files that violated the DMCA because the DOJ wouldn't let us delete them!

  10. But, then they would say so. by mbone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first order was used as evidence in filing the second. There was even a /. story about it.

  12. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe. It depends on how clear the DOJ was. The DOJ asks companies to continue hosting forums for instance related to very bad stuff all the time. They aren't just continue to preserve the data. They are asking the companies to keep the forums up so that there investigation can continue unhampered by what otherwise the law requires them to take down.

  13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They actually did that.

  14. Re:Huh? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a good friend that got charged for drunk driving when a cop found her sleeping in her running car in the parking lot of a bar. The cop rolled up on her and asked what she was doing. She said she was too drunk to drive and didn't have anyone to come get her. It was 15 degrees out so she started the car and went to sleep. He immediately arrested her despite the fact that she never drove the car anywhere, simply putting the key in the ignition is apparently illegal. When they got back to the station she even blew bellow the legal limit, but she signed a statement describing what had happened which they then used as evidence against her in court and she lost. She spent the night in jail, paid a $1000 fine and lost her license for a year... for doing the right thing.

    The moral of the story? Don't talk to the the police. Don't help them. Don't believe anything they tell you, it is perfectly legal for them to lie to you. Don't sign anything. Don't volunteer any information, even if you think it's helpful. You do one thing and one thing only: Ask for a lawyer over and over... and even then, it has happened, that the police send in the DA and tell you "here's a lawyer" and you admit everything while they're taping. It's legal, and it's been done. Fuck the police, they are not your friends, they are there to arrest you. If they can't arrest you, you are uninteresting to them.

    Try it, call the police up sometime and report that your car was broken into... or your house... they may show up sometime in the next 12 to 48hrs... maybe... in my city you get to file a report over the phone to an answering machine. Then try calling them and telling them you've got an once of pot. You'll have 3 squad cars in your driveway in under 5 minutes. Welcome to American indeed.

  15. Re:Huh? by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative

    The moral of the story? Don't talk to the the police. Don't help them. Don't believe anything they tell you, it is perfectly legal for them to lie to you. Don't sign anything. Don't volunteer any information, even if you think it's helpful. You do one thing and one thing only: Ask for a lawyer over and over... and even then, it has happened, that the police send in the DA and tell you "here's a lawyer" and you admit everything while they're taping. It's legal, and it's been done. Fuck the police, they are not your friends, they are there to arrest you.

    Most of what you say is true, except for the one about the DA. I am a lawyer, and we studied that case in my professional responsibility class - that defendant's statements were suppressed, and the DA was disbarred. You frequently can trust the bar overseers: one benefit of our adversarial system is that since the other side's lawyer is trying to fark you, and your lawyer is trying to fark them, the neutral party really does end up pretty neutral. Just don't trust the cops. They're always on the other side.

  16. Play on words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  17. Re:Huh? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Their servers were under investigation" is only kind of true. The DOJ was reportedly investigating parties other than Megaupload. Their normal procedure was to remove offending files so they could remain compliant under the DMCA. This investigation didn't have anything on Megaupload as they kept close to but never crossing that fine line. And of course, when they were told they could no longer remove the infringing material, they did as they were told in order to assist in the investigation.

    I guess it is important to note that the DOJ either didn't know what its left hand was doing (unlikely) or this in indeed entrapment. And just because they said it's not does not make it so. Recently, we have all be seeing more stories of how police and others are not just planting evidence, they are simply making things up!

  18. Re:Huh? by DragonTHC · · Score: 5, Informative

    no, because the DOJ specifically asked them not to alert the users who uploaded the files.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  19. Re:Huh? by flimflammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except that according to his story, she wasn't even over the limit. However by her admission, she signed a document recalling the events, her admission of feeling impaired enough to convict her.

    In the US, people are taught to trust the police from childhood and onward. To the average person, it's only the nutters that are screaming about how backwards the police system can be like this, so the usual instinct is to try to be polite and helpful since they don't feel they have done anything wrong. Unfortunately for them, when they do finally end up on the wrong end of a police investigation, they will learn all too well how being helpful is about the worst thing they can do.

    So yeah, it was dumb to talk to the police, but most people do not know any better and it is hard to fault them for it. Most people have never even had an encounter with a police officer, let alone been given any reason to personally mistrust them all.

  20. Re:Huh? by An+Anonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Try it, call the police up sometime and report that your car was broken into... or your house... they may show up sometime in the next 12 to 48hrs... maybe... in my city you get to file a report over the phone to an answering machine. Then try calling them and telling them you've got an once of pot. You'll have 3 squad cars in your driveway in under 5 minutes. Welcome to American indeed.

    Reminds me of a humorous story many of you are probably familiar with:

    Going to bed the other night, I noticed people in my shed stealing things.
    I phoned the police but was told no one was in the area to help. They said they would send someone over as soon as possible.
    I hung up. A minute later I rang again. 'Hello,' I said, 'I called you a minute ago because there were people in my shed. You don't have to hurry now, because I've shot them.'
    Within minutes there were half a dozen police cars in the area, plus helicopters and an armed response unit. They caught the burglars red-handed.
    One of the officers said: 'I thought you said you'd shot them.'
    To which I replied: 'I thought you said there was no one available.'