Judge Rules Megaupload Raid Illegal

[Rednog]

I'm confused, why would this guy be extradited to the US for this? In fact lately alot of people are being (or are about to be) extradited to the US for things that didn't happen of US soil, what are they the only people who can prosecute pirates and internet users now?

They're pushing for extraditing people because a lot of countries turn a blind eye to copyright infringement against people in the US. Look at China as an example, it's piracy is massive, and with a gov't with such tight control you'd think they would've stomped it down, but it has flourished over the last 20 or so years.
A lot of countries just don't care because they don't have the same volume of high profile content providers as in the US.

Edit: And yes before someone chirps in, China has finally begun cracking down, but I'm guessing the reason for doing so is because the US owes so much money to China and having money siphoned out by something like piracy probably isn't profitable to the gov't in the long run.

 

[Latinidiot]

Those fat fucks at 'Murrika better pay him for all the damage they caused.

Because we're all hateful fat asses, right?

Jesus, did you stop to think you might be worse than the people you're insulting?

Well you're not one of the fat fucks that did cause damage, are you? Because if you are in any way responsibe for this then wow man, you're an arse.

 

[Josh123914]

I'm confused, why would this guy be extradited to the US for this? In fact lately alot of people are being (or are about to be) extradited to the US for things that didn't happen of US soil, what are they the only people who can prosecute pirates and internet users now?

They're pushing for extraditing people because a lot of countries turn a blind eye to copyright infringement against people in the US. Look at China as an example, it's piracy is massive, and with a gov't with such tight control you'd think they would've stomped it down, but it has flourished over the last 20 or so years.
A lot of countries just don't care because they don't have the same volume of high profile content providers as in the US.

Edit: And yes before someone chirps in, China has finally begun cracking down, but I'm guessing the reason for doing so is because the US owes so much money to China and having money siphoned out by something like piracy probably isn't profitable to the gov't in the long run.

OK, true but you'd think the likes of New Zealand and the UK can handle high profile people on their own right, I mean when it gets to the point where Julian Assange does something legal in the UK, but it's illegal in the US, and they push for him to get extradited from the UK to Sweden, and then over again to the US so hard that he seeks asylum in an embassy it stops looking as if the US government is doing this for other countries out of the kindness of their hearts, and more them attempting to police the internet (see SOPA, a law in the US that was going to affect most countries in the world, but many in congress didn't so much as glance at twice until thousands of people called them out on it).

 

[Woodsey]

'We are digesting... Justice Winklemann's judgment'

Must not... make... jokes....

 

[ninetails593]

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

 

[Kargathia]

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

It's a case of relative merit. Most people tend to be slightly more upset about a government blatantly ignoring a few shipping containers worth of international law - just because they can.

 

[Suave Charlie]

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

Cause two wrongs make a right, right? And no the service it provided wasn't illegal, just the activities that it then allowed had the potential to be illegal. Pretty substantial difference legally.

 

[ninetails593]

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

Cause two wrongs make a right, right? And no the service it provided wasn't illegal, just the activities that it then allowed had the potential to be illegal. Pretty substantial difference legally.

You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that there is substantial evidence of the owners actively knowing and rewarding the upload of pirated material. Look into this, and you'll find that Megaupload very poorly hid very illegal activities. I've said this before: Megaupload is ground we should be happy to lose.

 

[Excludos]

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

If its ok for the gov to not follow the rules, I see no reason why anyone else should. Besides, like the guy above said, Megaupload wasn't illegal. But it was a service that could have been used to host illegal files. Just like Youtube, Google docs and Facebook.

 

[Suave Charlie]

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

Cause two wrongs make a right, right? And no the service it provided wasn't illegal, just the activities that it then allowed had the potential to be illegal. Pretty substantial difference legally.

You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that there is substantial evidence of the owners actively knowing and rewarding the upload of pirated material. Look into this, and you'll find that Megaupload very poorly hid very illegal activities. I've said this before: Megaupload is ground we should be happy to lose.

Still doesn't mean that the authorities looking into it are exempt from the law, they should have followed procedure to the book. From the hard drives being taken to the US and then the content not being released to the defendant's lawyers to the illegal raid itself, just stinks of the US trying to act as a combination of world police and media industry hired thug.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

YES!

This means the glorious Megavideo shall return

 

[ninetails593]

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

If its ok for the gov to not follow the rules, I see no reason why anyone else should. Besides, like the guy above said, Megaupload wasn't illegal. But it was a service that could have been used to host illegal files. Just like Youtube, Google docs and Facebook.

Look at my response to the other guy and then do some research for yourself before you parrot the sentiments of others.

It's like everybody's suddenly forgotten how blatantly illegal Megaupload was.

Cause two wrongs make a right, right? And no the service it provided wasn't illegal, just the activities that it then allowed had the potential to be illegal. Pretty substantial difference legally.

You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that there is substantial evidence of the owners actively knowing and rewarding the upload of pirated material. Look into this, and you'll find that Megaupload very poorly hid very illegal activities. I've said this before: Megaupload is ground we should be happy to lose.

Still doesn't mean that the authorities looking into it are exempt from the law, they should have followed procedure to the book. From the hard drives being taken to the US and then the content not being released to the defendant's lawyers to the illegal raid itself, just stinks of the US trying to act as a combination of world police and media industry hired thug.

There are FAR greater injustices than this. I don't know if you realize, but it's not that easy to prevent misdoings indefinitely. It may shatter your dreams of corrupt tycoons plotting evil schemes, but realize that we don't know anything about the way this order was given. We don't know if it was a mistake, an accident, a lazy decision, intentional, etc.

All we know is that this website says New Zealand says the US did something mean.

 

[Suave Charlie]

There are FAR greater injustices than this.

So it should be ignored?

I don't know if you realize, but it's not that easy to prevent misdoings indefinitely. It may shatter your dreams of corrupt tycoons plotting evil schemes, but realize that we don't know anything about the way this order was given. We don't know if it was a mistake, an accident, a lazy decision, intentional, etc.

So because essentially "shit happens" then we shouldn't call people on it? What.

Why does the context over which the order was given even matter? If they've acted inappropriately then it doesn't matter whether it was a mistake or deliberate, they still acted inappropriately.

The entire case has been extraordinarily high profile which only highlights what's gone on, that being that the US have for one likely overstepped their boundaries with the removal of the evidence and demands of extradition. The concerns over due process are especially valid since the business got taken down before papers were served.

All we know is that this website says New Zealand says the US did something mean.

Mean and illegal are now synonymous it seems.

 

[ninetails593]

So it should be ignored?

In favor of dealing with actual issues, yes.

So because essentially "shit happens" then we shouldn't call people on it? What.

Why does the context over which the order was given even matter? If they've acted inappropriately then it doesn't matter whether it was a mistake or deliberate, they still acted inappropriately.

The entire case has been extraordinarily high profile which only highlights what's gone on, that being that the US have for one likely overstepped their boundaries with the removal of the evidence and demands of extradition. The concerns over due process are especially valid since the business got taken down before papers were served.

You claim that this misconduct shows that the United States is a power-hungry animal that craves world domination. I claim that it's misconduct. Which of us is being more ridiculous? It's far more realistic that this was a mistake or a gamble, rather than the United States government raiding some criminal's house to assert dominance.

I mean really, we're facing an election, economic strain, controversial laws, educational failure, political disputes... And you think the United States is concerned with sacking some guy? The cornered rat may bite the cat, but it does not bite all the cats it can. If this act had any hidden motive, then it was probably ordered by a cartoon character!

Mean and illegal are now synonymous it seems.

Either way, my point still stands. A website claims New Zealand claims the United States committed an action of misconduct towards a blatant criminal.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

In favor of dealing with actual issues, yes.

The government doing illegal shit and forcing their law over the law of other countries is an actual problem no matter how you look at it.

You claim that this misconduct shows that the United States is a power-hungry animal that craves world domination. I claim that it's misconduct. Which of us is being more ridiculous? It's far more realistic that this was a mistake or a gamble, rather than the United States government raiding some criminal's house to assert dominance.

I mean really, we're facing an election, economic strain, controversial laws, educational failure, political disputes... And you think the United States is concerned with sacking some guy? The cornered rat may bite the cat, but it does not bite all the cats it can. If this act had any exterior motive, then it was probably ordered by a cartoon character!

Lets see.
Invasion of the middle east, laws that would affect the whole world in a negative way, requesting estraction of people who didn't break the law of the country (the guy in England), stealing evidence (if it wasn't allowed to be taken, it's theft)...
Well, it's not just 1 misconduct that shows this. It's rather the last half century that shows that.

And if you're facing all those problems, why do you support them doing this shit instead of asking them to fix your own god damn problems? If you say we should overlook this, you are supporting them.

Either way, my point still stands. A website claims New Zealand claims the United States committed an action of misconduct towards a blatant criminal.

There is a HUGE difference between mean and illegal.

And no, your point doesn't stand. He is not a criminal until it's proven. To prove that, he needs to be brought before the law in a legal way. The law exist for a reason. I would really like to see how you would react if you were brought to "justice" from people who ignore the law. Would you be so open minded and forgiving in that case.

 

[Suave Charlie]

You claim that this misconduct shows that the United States is a power-hungry animal that craves world domination. I claim that it's misconduct.

Strawman. I claim that the US has overstepped it's bounds in a copyright case, the US having a lobbying culture, it's not ridiculous in the least to postulate that this isn't entirely above board.

Which of us is being more ridiculous? It's far more realistic that this was a mistake or a gamble, rather than the United States government raiding some criminal's house to assert dominance.

I mean really, we're facing an election, economic strain, controversial laws, educational failure, political disputes... And you think the United States is concerned with sacking some guy? The cornered rat may bite the cat, but it does not bite all the cats it can. If this act had any exterior motive, then it was probably ordered by a cartoon character!

Now you may be alarmed to hear this, but the US has loads of resources, it's like it's one of the most powerful nations on the planet! What you've seemed to say is that just because other more important things occur each day then the minor ones shouldn't be granted time, am I reading that right?
The US has fervently been tackling copyright infringements over the past year or so and has been acting as a de facto enforcer for it for the media industries, looking after the big business interests where previously it would have more likely been civil suits brought by the businesses themselves.
After the absurd amount of lobbying that occurred with the SOPA debacle then it's not beyond the realm of possibility that this same tactic fueled the piracy crackdowns.

Either way, my point still stands. A website claims New Zealand claims the United States committed an action of misconduct towards a blatant criminal.

Well now you're just being silly, "A man says some things about a group of men" Oversimplification helps no one.
And tut tut, where's that presumption of innocence? It's down to the US to prove he's guilty but to do so they need to follow the letter of the law.

 

[ninetails593]

The government doing illegal shit and forcing their law over the law of other countries is an actual problem no matter how you look at it.

You do not seem to understand how low this man is. It would be a stretch to consider him equal to a drug lord. To suggest that this is important enough to the United States that they would break the law for him is absurd.

Lets see.
Invasion of the middle east, laws that would affect the whole world in a negative way, requesting estraction of people who didn't break the law of the country (the guy in England), stealing evidence (if it wasn't allowed to be taken, it's theft)...
Well, it's not just 1 misconduct that shows this. It's rather the last half century that shows that.

The last half century? So then, in 50 years time you can only provide 4 ambiguous events. Well, we must have the best track record of any nation then. Unless of course you are dead wrong in this statement.

And if you're facing all those problems, why do you support them doing this shit instead of asking them to fix your own god damn problems? If you say we should overlook this, you are supporting them.

I am supporting that we fix our own problems. You, on the other hand, are demanding that the United States beat itself up because they acted in misconduct towards an owner of a website. We have high priorities, and you suggest that instead of giving our attention to these things, we should give all of our attention to a lowly criminal that may have been treated unfairly. It is absurd.

There is a HUGE difference between mean and illegal.

And no, your point doesn't stand. He is not a criminal until it's proven. To prove that, he needs to be brought before the law in a legal way. The law exist for a reason. I would really like to see how you would react if you were brought to "justice" from people who ignore the law. Would you be so open minded and forgiving in that case.

There is substantial evidence which has been shown publicly of obvious criminal offense from this man. Simply because he has not been tried (remember why the US is trying to extradite him?) does not clear him of this. Ironically, you seem to be opposing that the US extradite him for trial because the man has not been tried by the US. Do you see your error?

 

[ninetails593]

Strawman. I claim that the US has overstepped it's bounds in a copyright case, the US having a lobbying culture, it's not ridiculous in the least to postulate that this isn't entirely above board.

Strawman fallacy? Fallacy fallacy. A fallacy suggests that supporting points are not logically connected to the conclusion, it says nothing about the conclusion. As for your conclusion, you have finally rationalized it enough to the point that I can agree with it. However, I still argue that this has no hidden power agenda.

Now you may be alarmed to hear this, but the US has loads of resources, it's like it's one of the most powerful nations on the planet! What you've seemed to say is that just because other more important things occur each day then the minor ones shouldn't be granted time, am I reading that right?
The US has fervently been tackling copyright infringements over the past year or so and has been acting as a de facto enforcer for it for the media industries, looking after the big business interests where previously it would have more likely been civil suits brought by the businesses themselves.
After the absurd amount of lobbying that occurred with the SOPA debacle then it's not beyond the realm of possibility that this same tactic fueled the piracy crackdowns.

If you pay attention to American politics, you know that there are strong issues in the United States. But for your claim that the US is in great condition, do you remember that little insignificant $15,796,583,044,605.23 national debt? High. Priorities.

Copyright law is heavily debated, but even then there are far more important laws to oppose. Recent laws against illegal immigrants have caused serious problems, and similar laws to the Arizona law are being proposed throughout several states. But I suppose that will have to wait, because Kim Dotcom was mistreated in New Zealand.

Well now you're just being silly, "A man says some things about a group of men" Oversimplification helps no one.
And tut tut, where's that presumption of innocence? It's down to the US to prove he's guilty but to do so they need to follow the letter of the law.

True. However to prove this in court without extraditing the man would require them to pressure another country to bring him to trial. And once again, this man is a low priority.