No, we are blaming a prosecutor for abusing her authority and bullying a citizen in order to promote herself and in the process of doing that, which is illegal and immoral by itself, contributing to the causes that pushed him to suicide.
There is no proof of that. Even after illegally seizing all their servers the DOJ was unable of finding real evidence of what you are claiming. The proof of that is that DOJ abandoned the case, which would never have happened if they had any real evidence.
I think you are reading way too much into it. Your explanations keep seeming more and more like conspiracy theories. There is a motive why DOJ didn't pursue any charges, and that is because they had ZERO evidence of Megaupload doing anything illegal.
The charge was not because of hosting the files. They did comply with all DCMA take down notices they received and stopped hosting any infringing file reported. Evenso the DOJ charged them because they had the files stored, which DOJ itself had previously ordered them to do.
Apparently your understanding of my argument is about as good as your understanding of the law and probably of everything else. You, my good sir, have a great career at manual labor ahead.
Nope, your distorted interpretation of the law disagrees with me. Either way none of the laws you linked apply to his case and he wasn't charged with any of them. What we are doing here is trying to find analogies to which your linked laws could apply. Imperfect as all analogies may be mine is still much better than yours.
There is a difference between what you think the law says and what the law says. It is not because a bully prosecutor made ridiculous charges against him that he is guilty of them. Now we will never know, because he is dead, but if it went to trial he could as well end acquitted. Not that the outcome would be good for him even then. Even if he had been found innocent he would still have lost every penny he had defending himself, that is how fair US justice system is.
They could even have received note, but even if they did, they still could not destroy evidence. It is like a cop knowing you are drunk and ordering you to drive. Driving drunk is a felony, but disobeying the officer too. Best thing you can do is do as he says and let him explain later why he ordered you to do so.
Hosting illegal material is not a crime under DCMA. Not deleting it once they receive note is. But they couldn't delete any file because DOJ told them there was an investigation under way and the files were evidence. Destroying evidence is a crime.
Breaking & entering to access someone else's property with the intent of committing another crime inside is most certainly not trespass.
You are good at linking laws. Horribly bad at understanding them, though.
He trespassed in order to access archives to which he already had legal access. If he had distributed the files it would be another history, but he never did. He never committed any crime, except trespassing. Even more, neither JSTOR nor MIT pressed charges of anything against him.
To make it burglary you need to do it with the intention of committing a crime inside. If everything you do is to enter some building, with no one inside, it is just trespassing and at most destruction of property if you damage anything in your way in.
OK, but in our parallel, it is arguable if what he intended to do "inside" the MIT site was illegal. He did have legal access to the files. It would be like using a crowbar (without damaging anything in some way) and entering a building to take pictures from a book you own, for example.
Either way, even if what he was planing to do was illegal, it would be a third-degree burglary (in the states that consider it like so) and that is a felony with a maximum sentence of 5 years, not 35.
I think it is a matter of taste, but a game that purposely allows for unfair circumstances based on the cards you own or not does not seem to be a good game for me. I am also not very found of the idea that complex (and in Magic's case Encyclopedic) rules are a good thing for a game.
Great games, in my opinion, would be Chess or Go, for example. Games that have incredibly simple rules and still lead to incredibly complex situations and strategies.
That is the maximum punishment for trespassing. Arguably they can charge you with damage to property if you destroy a lock too, although that wouldn't be a good analogy here, as Swartz never destroyed anything in his trespassing.
The plea bargain system only works as it does because the law is draconian enough to allow for decades of punishment as punishment for small crimes. If not for that people wouldn't be forced to take plea bargains regardless of their culpability to avoid the possibility of ridiculous punishments.
And when it is not legal and you use a crowbar you get up to 30 days of prison in the worst case scenario for trespassing, but when you do it electronically it magically becomes 35 years.
So you would risk, for example, 35 years in prison instead of taking 5? That and using every penny you have defending yourself? That is the kind of deal they offer, and they will make every possible effort to make you get the 35 if you dare not to take the deal.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we are blaming a prosecutor for abusing her authority and bullying a citizen in order to promote herself and in the process of doing that, which is illegal and immoral by itself, contributing to the causes that pushed him to suicide.
That is hardly a problem.
That seems accurate, but I would say that there are still a lot of other items between 3 and 4.
Currently, with US economy going as it is, it is more likely that they will borrow money than lend it.
Already tried and failed.
Just take all the positive moderation points and keep the negative on editing. Problem solved...
Sorry, but what you suggest is simply impossible, and that is why it has never been done, and never will.
The indictment is exactly that: the indictment. It is what the DOJ claim to have happened, and what the failed to prove,
There is no proof of that. Even after illegally seizing all their servers the DOJ was unable of finding real evidence of what you are claiming. The proof of that is that DOJ abandoned the case, which would never have happened if they had any real evidence.
I think you are reading way too much into it. Your explanations keep seeming more and more like conspiracy theories. There is a motive why DOJ didn't pursue any charges, and that is because they had ZERO evidence of Megaupload doing anything illegal.
The charge was not because of hosting the files. They did comply with all DCMA take down notices they received and stopped hosting any infringing file reported. Evenso the DOJ charged them because they had the files stored, which DOJ itself had previously ordered them to do.
Apparently your understanding of my argument is about as good as your understanding of the law and probably of everything else. You, my good sir, have a great career at manual labor ahead.
Nope, your distorted interpretation of the law disagrees with me. Either way none of the laws you linked apply to his case and he wasn't charged with any of them. What we are doing here is trying to find analogies to which your linked laws could apply. Imperfect as all analogies may be mine is still much better than yours.
There is a difference between what you think the law says and what the law says. It is not because a bully prosecutor made ridiculous charges against him that he is guilty of them. Now we will never know, because he is dead, but if it went to trial he could as well end acquitted. Not that the outcome would be good for him even then. Even if he had been found innocent he would still have lost every penny he had defending himself, that is how fair US justice system is.
They could even have received note, but even if they did, they still could not destroy evidence. It is like a cop knowing you are drunk and ordering you to drive. Driving drunk is a felony, but disobeying the officer too. Best thing you can do is do as he says and let him explain later why he ordered you to do so.
Hosting illegal material is not a crime under DCMA. Not deleting it once they receive note is. But they couldn't delete any file because DOJ told them there was an investigation under way and the files were evidence. Destroying evidence is a crime.
Nope. Their argument is that they couldn't lawfully delete evidence once the DOJ made them aware that their servers were under investigation.
Breaking & entering to access someone else's property with the intent of committing another crime inside is most certainly not trespass.
You are good at linking laws. Horribly bad at understanding them, though.
He trespassed in order to access archives to which he already had legal access. If he had distributed the files it would be another history, but he never did. He never committed any crime, except trespassing. Even more, neither JSTOR nor MIT pressed charges of anything against him.
To make it burglary you need to do it with the intention of committing a crime inside. If everything you do is to enter some building, with no one inside, it is just trespassing and at most destruction of property if you damage anything in your way in.
OK, but in our parallel, it is arguable if what he intended to do "inside" the MIT site was illegal. He did have legal access to the files. It would be like using a crowbar (without damaging anything in some way) and entering a building to take pictures from a book you own, for example.
Either way, even if what he was planing to do was illegal, it would be a third-degree burglary (in the states that consider it like so) and that is a felony with a maximum sentence of 5 years, not 35.
I think it is a matter of taste, but a game that purposely allows for unfair circumstances based on the cards you own or not does not seem to be a good game for me. I am also not very found of the idea that complex (and in Magic's case Encyclopedic) rules are a good thing for a game.
Great games, in my opinion, would be Chess or Go, for example. Games that have incredibly simple rules and still lead to incredibly complex situations and strategies.
Burglary requires the building to be a dwelling-house, i.e. and habitation. People need to live there.
That is the maximum punishment for trespassing. Arguably they can charge you with damage to property if you destroy a lock too, although that wouldn't be a good analogy here, as Swartz never destroyed anything in his trespassing.
The plea bargain system only works as it does because the law is draconian enough to allow for decades of punishment as punishment for small crimes. If not for that people wouldn't be forced to take plea bargains regardless of their culpability to avoid the possibility of ridiculous punishments.
And when it is not legal and you use a crowbar you get up to 30 days of prison in the worst case scenario for trespassing, but when you do it electronically it magically becomes 35 years.
So you would risk, for example, 35 years in prison instead of taking 5? That and using every penny you have defending yourself? That is the kind of deal they offer, and they will make every possible effort to make you get the 35 if you dare not to take the deal.