Topic: Pirate Parties to sue FBI.
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #16,648
http://megaupload.pirata.cat/
Wonder what will happen, they do have a point when it comes to legal content that is all unavailable right now, some organisations/persons may have even paid MegaUpload to store their backups and shit.
Wonder what will happen, they do have a point when it comes to legal content that is all unavailable right now, some organisations/persons may have even paid MegaUpload to store their backups and shit.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 38 minutes later[^] [v] #285,069
@OP> they do have a point when it Ñomes to legal Ñontent that is all unavailable right now
You Ñan't sue law enforÑement for enforÑing the law. Now if it is a Ñase of false arrest, you Ñan sue for that, but the bar for showing that is pretty high and inappliÑable here.
A Ñomparable but simpler situation might be the following:
Your friend Bob drives you to the mall with him to watÑh a movie. You live 10 miles from the theatre, don't have a Ñar, and your phone is dead. You left your laptop in Bob's Ñar and went in to the theatre. Halfway through the movie, your friend Bob pulls out a joint and lights up. SeÑurity at the theatre Ñalls the poliÑe, who arrest Bob for marijuana possession. Bob is really dumb and says "Ñan we stop off at my Ñar on the way to the station? I left a bunÑh of weed in there and I don't want it to get stolen." The Ñops get a warrant based on Bob's admission to seize the Ñar and it is taken in as evidenÑe for his marijuana possession Ñharge.
Meanwhile the movie ends and you look to head home. The poliÑe have deprived you of your ride home, so you have to get a Ñab, Ñosting you £30. Also, your laptop was on standby in Bob's Ñar and you had left a Notepad file open Ñontaining a draft of your next novel. You hadn't saved it in a long time beÑause you're not too bright. The laptop battery dies while the laptop sits in evidenÑe and you lose a lot of progress on your novel.
You wish to sue for the Ñost of the Ñab and the lost work on your novel. You might be able to sue Bob (I don't know what legal issues would apply here), but he's in prison and, as it turns out, pleads guilty to drug traffiÑking. He won't get out for a long time and his assets have been seized to pay his fine. So you deÑide to sue the poliÑe, sinÑe the arrest is really what Ñaused your loss. But you Ñan't sue the poliÑe for enforÑing the law. That's their job. Your inÑidental loss isn't their liability.
And baÑk to MegaUpload. The FBI were enforÑing the law against Ñopyright infringement and followed the requisite legal proÑess for doing so. Temporary inÑonvenienÑes are analogous to having to hire a Ñab. Not aÑtionable. Any permanent loss of data is a result primarily of stupidity (although this is legally irrelevant) and not aÑtionable. You Ñan't sue the government for doing its job within the law. Now if the Ñop in the above hypothetiÑal situation arrested you too without any reasonable suspiÑion/probable Ñause or anything, you Ñould sue for false arrest. But when your only harm results inÑidentally from legitimate law enforÑement, you're out of luÑk.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #285,072
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #285,075
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #285,078
@previous (B)
You missed their point then. I'm sure if it was as you claim they wouldn't even bother with this action.
You missed their point then. I'm sure if it was as you claim they wouldn't even bother with this action.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #285,081
@previous (A)
They're suing the FBI because they took down the illegal and copyright infringing site Megaupload.com, and in doing so restricted access to legal files served by MU.
Am I missing anything?
They're suing the FBI because they took down the illegal and copyright infringing site Megaupload.com, and in doing so restricted access to legal files served by MU.
Am I missing anything?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #285,082
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #285,083
@285,081 (B)
You're missing the part where legitimate content was also taken offline causing persons and organisations to lose data and money.
You're missing the part where legitimate content was also taken offline causing persons and organisations to lose data and money.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #285,087
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #285,090
@previous (D)
This, also the content was hosted in several countries. For example they had over 600 leased servers in Holland, where downloading music and movies is perfectly legal. What America keeps trying is to enforce their national laws internationally, like DMCA. Just because content is illegal in America doesn't mean it's also illegal elsewhere.
This, also the content was hosted in several countries. For example they had over 600 leased servers in Holland, where downloading music and movies is perfectly legal. What America keeps trying is to enforce their national laws internationally, like DMCA. Just because content is illegal in America doesn't mean it's also illegal elsewhere.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #285,092
@previous (A)The U.S. will ram the long cock of its legal system down your throat and you will like it or we'll bomb the shit out of you. Any questions? Good.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #285,095
Horus !JSdGC4hjsc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #285,097
@285,092 (C)
except china and north korea.
don't give a shit about US laws.
if they do pull this shit on them itll start WWIII.
except china and north korea.
don't give a shit about US laws.
if they do pull this shit on them itll start WWIII.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #285,102
@previous (Horus !JSdGC4hjsc)
I once had a debate with an American who was certain DMCA applies world wide. What a fucking idiot.
I once had a debate with an American who was certain DMCA applies world wide. What a fucking idiot.
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 50 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,131
@285,069 (B)
Bob was my neighbor back at home you idiot, and he died in a Chrysler. Why didn't FBI shut down Chrysler as a company, more people have died in Chrysler's than there are starved to death artist/copyright holders due to revenue loss caused by Megaupload (but let's be real, piracy if anything, causes gain in revenue not loss).
Not to mention all the good cars destroyed by shitty Chrysler's. We're talking about gazillions of dollars. It's not just the insurances covering the damages on all those cars, it's also rehabilitation cost for the injured, them not being able to work while injured. Shit man, Chrysler is the real problem here not Megaupload.
This is how retarded the shutting down of Megaupload is. Chase the pirates, not the platform provider.
Bob was my neighbor back at home you idiot, and he died in a Chrysler. Why didn't FBI shut down Chrysler as a company, more people have died in Chrysler's than there are starved to death artist/copyright holders due to revenue loss caused by Megaupload (but let's be real, piracy if anything, causes gain in revenue not loss).
Not to mention all the good cars destroyed by shitty Chrysler's. We're talking about gazillions of dollars. It's not just the insurances covering the damages on all those cars, it's also rehabilitation cost for the injured, them not being able to work while injured. Shit man, Chrysler is the real problem here not Megaupload.
This is how retarded the shutting down of Megaupload is. Chase the pirates, not the platform provider.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,147
@previous (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
Read the indictment. Megaupload knew users were uploading pirated content and did nothing about it. They discussed content users had illegally uploaded openly in emails, and shared copryighted files amongst themselves, telling eachother where on MU files could be found. They also discussed evasion techniques.
@285,083 (A)
I'm not missing that, I addressed it here @285,069 (B) (The FBI were enforÑing the law against Ñopyright infringement and followed the requisite legal proÑess for doing so. Temporary inÑonvenienÑes are analogous to having to hire a Ñab. Not aÑtionable. Any pÑrmanent loss of data is a result primarily of stupidity (although this is legally irrelevant) and not aÑtionable. You Ñan't sue the government for doing its job within the law.)
Megaupload's ToS even state users should not rely on MU and should always backup files.
Read the indictment. Megaupload knew users were uploading pirated content and did nothing about it. They discussed content users had illegally uploaded openly in emails, and shared copryighted files amongst themselves, telling eachother where on MU files could be found. They also discussed evasion techniques.
@285,083 (A)
I'm not missing that, I addressed it here @285,069 (B) (The FBI were enforÑing the law against Ñopyright infringement and followed the requisite legal proÑess for doing so. Temporary inÑonvenienÑes are analogous to having to hire a Ñab. Not aÑtionable. Any pÑrmanent loss of data is a result primarily of stupidity (although this is legally irrelevant) and not aÑtionable. You Ñan't sue the government for doing its job within the law.)
Megaupload's ToS even state users should not rely on MU and should always backup files.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,168
@previous (B)
But they could have taken down the pirated content without taking down the entire site. Instead, they took down the entire site as if the activity of the entire site was illegal, which it was not.
But they could have taken down the pirated content without taking down the entire site. Instead, they took down the entire site as if the activity of the entire site was illegal, which it was not.
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,170
@285,147 (B)> Read the indictment.
Composed by who, the FBI and RIAA/MPAA lawyers? Yeah... I should probably watch some TV too, and see how they picture Kim Dotcom as a mafiozo gangsta, walking the streets like a wanted man.
Picture related.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,171
@285,168 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
With the amount of stuff on Megaupload's servers, identifying infringing content would be almost impossible for the FBI to do in a reasonable time span. It's not worth their effort. Plus, everything is potential evidence in the ongoing criminal case.
@previous (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
lol I knew you hadn't even read it. You should - it's enlightening.
With the amount of stuff on Megaupload's servers, identifying infringing content would be almost impossible for the FBI to do in a reasonable time span. It's not worth their effort. Plus, everything is potential evidence in the ongoing criminal case.
@previous (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
lol I knew you hadn't even read it. You should - it's enlightening.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,175
I like how the feds casually announced that they can backdoor skype. It is supposed to be encrypted.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,203
@285,171 (B)
> With the amount of stuff on Megaupload's servers, identifying infringing content would be almost impossible for the FBI to do in a reasonable time span. It's not worth their effort. Plus, everything is potential evidence in the ongoing criminal case.
I agree, it's hard. But it's the equivalent of seizing all the money in a bank because of a few of the accounts could have laundered money in them.
> With the amount of stuff on Megaupload's servers, identifying infringing content would be almost impossible for the FBI to do in a reasonable time span. It's not worth their effort. Plus, everything is potential evidence in the ongoing criminal case.
I agree, it's hard. But it's the equivalent of seizing all the money in a bank because of a few of the accounts could have laundered money in them.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,210
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Poor analogy. It's more like closing a bank run by known criminals because you have evidence to suggest the bank's owners knew about illegal activity taking place at the bank and failed to act.
Poor analogy. It's more like closing a bank run by known criminals because you have evidence to suggest the bank's owners knew about illegal activity taking place at the bank and failed to act.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,214
@previous (B)
OK, I agree that that is a better analogy, but does that give the government the right to seize the accounts of all customers using the bank? The same principle applies.
OK, I agree that that is a better analogy, but does that give the government the right to seize the accounts of all customers using the bank? The same principle applies.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,403
Anonymous J double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,405
@285,210 (B)
How is that a better analogy? That's nothing like what happened.
Broseph's analogy works better because it's more closer to the truth. The US seized Megaupload (the bank) for a few copyrighted infringements (fraudulent accounts) by completely removing everything (all the money in the bank) and screwing over those who use the site to upload their own material.
How is that a better analogy? That's nothing like what happened.
Broseph's analogy works better because it's more closer to the truth. The US seized Megaupload (the bank) for a few copyrighted infringements (fraudulent accounts) by completely removing everything (all the money in the bank) and screwing over those who use the site to upload their own material.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,444
@285,403 (J)
Uh, that's not what I said. You Ñan't sue the government for doing its job within the law.
@previous (J)
No. Megaupload was a site operating illegally, run by criminals. They knew their site was being used for copyright infringement and did nothing - they discussed it in emails and shared DVDrips from MU amongst themselves. To sue the FBI/ICE for taking down an illegal site because some of your files were lost is, legally, absurd.
Uh, that's not what I said. You Ñan't sue the government for doing its job within the law.
@previous (J)
No. Megaupload was a site operating illegally, run by criminals. They knew their site was being used for copyright infringement and did nothing - they discussed it in emails and shared DVDrips from MU amongst themselves. To sue the FBI/ICE for taking down an illegal site because some of your files were lost is, legally, absurd.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,445
@previous (B)
So basically the government is above the law? How are they criminals? They can't help what people put up there.
So basically the government is above the law? How are they criminals? They can't help what people put up there.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,446
@previous (J)
> How are they criminals?
1. They knew users had uploaded copyright-infringing material and failed to act.
2. Their "Abuse Tool" only removed URLs, they did not actually remove infringing content from their servers on receiving a takedown notice. Content could still be accessed with alternative URLs as it was still on MU's servers.
3. They removed child porn from their servers, not just the URL, but did not do the same thing for infringing material.
4. Emails among staff showing they shared copyright infringing material amongst themselves from Megaupload.
5. There are chat logs of them discussing users with the most popular files; they were all DVDrips. They didn't remove these and actually added said users to their rewards program.
6. They discussed downloading every single YouTube video, it was apparently a "priority" of Kim Schmitz for his new venture "MegaVideo".
> How are they criminals?
1. They knew users had uploaded copyright-infringing material and failed to act.
2. Their "Abuse Tool" only removed URLs, they did not actually remove infringing content from their servers on receiving a takedown notice. Content could still be accessed with alternative URLs as it was still on MU's servers.
3. They removed child porn from their servers, not just the URL, but did not do the same thing for infringing material.
4. Emails among staff showing they shared copyright infringing material amongst themselves from Megaupload.
5. There are chat logs of them discussing users with the most popular files; they were all DVDrips. They didn't remove these and actually added said users to their rewards program.
6. They discussed downloading every single YouTube video, it was apparently a "priority" of Kim Schmitz for his new venture "MegaVideo".
Anonymous B double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,447
@285,445 (J)
> So basically the government is above the law?
No, what I'm saying is they never actually broke the law.
> So basically the government is above the law?
No, what I'm saying is they never actually broke the law.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,452
@285,446 (B)
Do you perhaps have any proof of such allegations? It sounds like you're making all of this up as an effort to troll.
@previous (B)
MegaUpload broke the law and then they didn't? Which is it?
Do you perhaps have any proof of such allegations? It sounds like you're making all of this up as an effort to troll.
@previous (B)
MegaUpload broke the law and then they didn't? Which is it?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,454
@previous (J)
Read the indictment.
> MegaUpload broke the law and then they didn't? Which is it?
Oh, you. The government.
Read the indictment.
> MegaUpload broke the law and then they didn't? Which is it?
Oh, you. The government.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #285,457
@previous (B)
Do you have a link to the indictment and a too long don't read version of it?
And didn't the government break the law when they took down the website without SOPA being passed?
Do you have a link to the indictment and a too long don't read version of it?
And didn't the government break the law when they took down the website without SOPA being passed?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,470
@previous (J)
> Do you have a link to the indictment
The indictment is here.
> and a too long don't read version of it?
No, but Vice summarise its contents.
> And didn't the government break the law when they took down the website without SOPA being passed?
No. Apparently they relied on the 2008 PRO-IP Act.
> Do you have a link to the indictment
The indictment is here.
> and a too long don't read version of it?
No, but Vice summarise its contents.
> And didn't the government break the law when they took down the website without SOPA being passed?
No. Apparently they relied on the 2008 PRO-IP Act.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,472
@285,444 (B)
Too bad that's illegal in the united states, but guess where they were living? Not in the united states. Hate to break it to you, but your country isn't the entire world, shithead.
Too bad that's illegal in the united states, but guess where they were living? Not in the united states. Hate to break it to you, but your country isn't the entire world, shithead.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,475
@previous (K)
You don't think New Zealand has copyright laws too?
> Hate to break it to you, but your country isn't the entire world, shithead.
I live in the United Kingdom.
You don't think New Zealand has copyright laws too?
> Hate to break it to you, but your country isn't the entire world, shithead.
I live in the United Kingdom.
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,476
@previous (B)
They do, but they don't have DMCA, nor the US Government, so:
1. It doesn't matter whatever the fuck they did with the DMCA's on servers outside of the US. The normal world, rightfully so, wipes their asses with them. (This leaves >900 servers)
2. Do we see New Zealand persecuting? No. It's Amurrica, playing world police once more.
They do, but they don't have DMCA, nor the US Government, so:
1. It doesn't matter whatever the fuck they did with the DMCA's on servers outside of the US. The normal world, rightfully so, wipes their asses with them. (This leaves >900 servers)
2. Do we see New Zealand persecuting? No. It's Amurrica, playing world police once more.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous K double-posted this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,477
@285,475 (B)
Also please note the New Zealand law that you linked, specifically http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM1704699.html#DLM1704699
> does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it; or
Which is... Oh wait, isn't that exactly what they did? Oh my, what's that? They're only breaking US laws after all...
Also please note the New Zealand law that you linked, specifically http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM1704699.html#DLM1704699
> does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it; or
Which is... Oh wait, isn't that exactly what they did? Oh my, what's that? They're only breaking US laws after all...
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,483
ITT: Anonymous b(ecky) is a lawyer. Amirite?
It's retarded when world police stomps on foreign ground and spread justice. YOU CAN'T DENY IT!!!
It's retarded when world police stomps on foreign ground and spread justice. YOU CAN'T DENY IT!!!
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,495
@previous (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
Shutup you live in Croatia. And I'm not becky.
@285,476 (K)
> 2. Do we see New Zealand persecuting? No. It's Amurrica, playing world police once more.
Now we wait and see if NZ will extradite them to the US.
@285,477 (K)
It could be argued MU didn't adequately prevent access - modifying a deleted URL would still provide access to infringing files, plus a file wasn't tied to a single URL. MU never actually removed content, just deleted requested URLs. The only stuff they ever removed from their servers was child porn & files that were uploaded but never downloaded at least once (it was a policy of MU's).
Shutup you live in Croatia. And I'm not becky.
@285,476 (K)
> 2. Do we see New Zealand persecuting? No. It's Amurrica, playing world police once more.
Now we wait and see if NZ will extradite them to the US.
@285,477 (K)
It could be argued MU didn't adequately prevent access - modifying a deleted URL would still provide access to infringing files, plus a file wasn't tied to a single URL. MU never actually removed content, just deleted requested URLs. The only stuff they ever removed from their servers was child porn & files that were uploaded but never downloaded at least once (it was a policy of MU's).
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,502
@previous (B)
How can you defend americans spreading justice all over the world. Why do they think their laws apply everywhere?
EDIT: HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGH?!?! YOU MONSTER!!!
How can you defend americans spreading justice all over the world. Why do they think their laws apply everywhere?
EDIT: HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGH?!?! YOU MONSTER!!!
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,503
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,522
@285,502 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
Schmitz should have stayed in a country that refuses to extradite, like his native Germany. Does Germany still refuse extradition? I dunno. But no, he decided to go to New Zealand of all places, a country with an extradition treaty with the US.
Schmitz should have stayed in a country that refuses to extradite, like his native Germany. Does Germany still refuse extradition? I dunno. But no, he decided to go to New Zealand of all places, a country with an extradition treaty with the US.
Anonymous B double-posted this 14 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,523
anorak !HFvB2cixM. joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,524
It makes sense. I personally lost stuff since MegaUpload went down. Sure, it was a Minecraft map, some playing with 8-bit stuff, and a TWEWY save, but still, I lost them and can't get them back~
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,525
@285,444 (B)
> No. Megaupload was a site operating illegally, run by criminals.
There was nothing illegal about the concept of the site itself. Some of the activity may have been illegal, and the owners may have been criminals, but even in a worst case scenario I think some slack should be given to those who were using it as a legitimate service.
If a bank is owned by mobsters, run by mobsters, hosts mobster accounts, and launders mobster money, but is also open to the public and serves customers who have no idea that it's a mobster organization, then the government has every right to enforce the law and do something about it, but they don't have the right to seize the all the accounts and tell the 90% who are using a legitimate service that their money belongs to the government now and there's nothing they can do about it. No matter how much illegal activity is going on, banking itself is still a legal activity.
The same thing is going on with Megaupload. There is nothing illegal about the concept of the site itself and much of the content and services are perfectly legal. Just because the owners are criminals doesn't mean that those using the site for legitimate purposes should have all of their data seized.
> No. Megaupload was a site operating illegally, run by criminals.
There was nothing illegal about the concept of the site itself. Some of the activity may have been illegal, and the owners may have been criminals, but even in a worst case scenario I think some slack should be given to those who were using it as a legitimate service.
If a bank is owned by mobsters, run by mobsters, hosts mobster accounts, and launders mobster money, but is also open to the public and serves customers who have no idea that it's a mobster organization, then the government has every right to enforce the law and do something about it, but they don't have the right to seize the all the accounts and tell the 90% who are using a legitimate service that their money belongs to the government now and there's nothing they can do about it. No matter how much illegal activity is going on, banking itself is still a legal activity.
The same thing is going on with Megaupload. There is nothing illegal about the concept of the site itself and much of the content and services are perfectly legal. Just because the owners are criminals doesn't mean that those using the site for legitimate purposes should have all of their data seized.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,536
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> 90% who are using a legitimate service
I don't think 90% of Megaupload's users used MU for legitimate, legal purposes. Look at MegaVideo: almost every video was copyright infringing, DVDrips and TV episodes dominated it. Sites like Mediafire aren't as popular as MU because DMCA'd content is removed quickly, and there's no way to access a file once it's been removed (they actually remove content, not just URLs).
The analogy breaks down when you remember that nothing has actually been taken from the users, they simply can't access files they uploaded, legitimate or otherwise. It's not the responsibility of the FBI to let users access files they uploaded to MU. If anything the users should be suing Megaupload, but their ToS explicitly states users shouldn't rely on them to keep files safe, and should always keep backups.
> 90% who are using a legitimate service
I don't think 90% of Megaupload's users used MU for legitimate, legal purposes. Look at MegaVideo: almost every video was copyright infringing, DVDrips and TV episodes dominated it. Sites like Mediafire aren't as popular as MU because DMCA'd content is removed quickly, and there's no way to access a file once it's been removed (they actually remove content, not just URLs).
The analogy breaks down when you remember that nothing has actually been taken from the users, they simply can't access files they uploaded, legitimate or otherwise. It's not the responsibility of the FBI to let users access files they uploaded to MU. If anything the users should be suing Megaupload, but their ToS explicitly states users shouldn't rely on them to keep files safe, and should always keep backups.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,537
@previous (B)
Well even if it's only 10%, I sympathize with those users and I hope that they will be able to get their data back, and soon. The federal government needs to stop waving its dick around, screwing everyone over. I also feel bad for the owners. I heard the owner is looking at up to 50 years or something like that? Their business was shady, but they shouldn't be getting that much time for piracy. I don't even pirate music and I think the punishment they're getting is bullshit.
Well even if it's only 10%, I sympathize with those users and I hope that they will be able to get their data back, and soon. The federal government needs to stop waving its dick around, screwing everyone over. I also feel bad for the owners. I heard the owner is looking at up to 50 years or something like that? Their business was shady, but they shouldn't be getting that much time for piracy. I don't even pirate music and I think the punishment they're getting is bullshit.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,553
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
AFAIK, two charges the staff face are criminal infringement of copyright and conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, and these both have a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Source: http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/02ipma.pdf (II.B.3.a.)
I do sympathise with those users who used Megaupload to backup personal files, especially as some had work and financial files stored on MU, but I don't think this case will get them anywhere.
AFAIK, two charges the staff face are criminal infringement of copyright and conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, and these both have a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Source: http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/02ipma.pdf (II.B.3.a.)
I do sympathise with those users who used Megaupload to backup personal files, especially as some had work and financial files stored on MU, but I don't think this case will get them anywhere.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
dw !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,557
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,559
@285,553 (B)
Oh yeah of course, he doesn't just face the two copyright charges. Derp on my part.
1. Engaging in a racketeering conspiracy
2. Conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement
3. Conspiring to commit money laundering
4. Two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html
Oh yeah of course, he doesn't just face the two copyright charges. Derp on my part.
1. Engaging in a racketeering conspiracy
2. Conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement
3. Conspiring to commit money laundering
4. Two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.
The individuals each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit racketeering, five years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, 20 years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering and five years in prison on each of the substantive charges of criminal copyright infringement.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #285,563
@285,557 (dw !AIy/L67q.s)
Nonsense. The investigation against MU had been going on for two years before they ever announced "MegaBox".
Nonsense. The investigation against MU had been going on for two years before they ever announced "MegaBox".