Judge Rules Megaupload Raid Illegal

[ecoho]

USA!USA!USA!

Yeah great thing is that food production isn't the only thing to concern yourself about as a first world nation. If your goal as the most rich nation in the world is basically to make sure no one starves, well first off you're already failing at that, but yeah I'm pretty sure the citizens want a little more than that.

Isolationism would tank the global economy and you should bear in mind that those guys in china make the vast majority of the small components and pretty much everything else that keeps the higher level manufacturing in the US going, so yeah, you'd have thousands of businesses ruined, millions unemployed, but at least you all have enough to eat. That's all a person needs.

Seriously this started out as you think the guy's guilty so it shouldn't matter how they prosecute him, now you're talking about America like they're doing everyone a favour by not fucking them.

You're coming across a tad douche-y; if your country can't do whatever it wants then it'll fuck the planet.
Never get into diplomacy.

ok gonna quote the guy i saw after i posted who does a much better job of explaineing this(and you know the one i edited my post and told you to read but you seem unable to do that)

I'm not exactly well informed on this topic so can someone care to explain how exactly he could "press charges against the U.S. Gov" or how this exactly this is the U.S. overstepping its bounds? From what I can tell it was the N.Z. police that implemented the raid and handed over the data to the U.S. Gov. Wouldn't the only liable party (from a legal standpoint) be the N.Z. police who implemented the illegal raid which was only illegal due to the methods the N.Z. police used? All the U.S. did was press charges/accusations and push for it which they had jurisdiction to do so due to servers in Virginia. I'm not saying they were right to do so (as I don't really think the Megaupload company was doing anything illegal themselves) but it isn't like the U.S. didn't have the cooperation of the N.Z. government or jurisdiction rights. Again I'm not super informed on this type of thing so I'm genuinely asking for clarification.

You can't grow sufficient crops internally to support your population, you don't have the resources necessary internally to fuel your economy, you have little-to-no manufacturing capability.

Please tell me again how you need the rest of the world less than it needs you.

First I'm not agreeing with the other dude. I am a firm believer that the U.S. is better off participating in the global economy and would suffer greatly if it were for some reason to withdraw. However...

We are a net exporter of agricultural products [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States] which means we could feed ourselves

We have lots of natural resources compared to most other nations. In particular we have the largest coal deposits in the world, and have sizable deposits of most ores. It may not be enough to keep our industry going at the rate it currently does, but its not like it would grind to a halt.

We account for approximately 1/5th of the worlds manufacturing capability as of 2012. The largest manufacturing in the world. It represents about 1.6+ trillion in our 15+ trillion dollar yearly GDP. It would be the 8th largest economy in the world by itself [http://www.nist.gov/mep/upload/FINAL_NAM_REPORT_PAGES.pdf]. You don't see many of our goods on the shelf anymore because most of it tends to be high-end goods like gas turbines or computer chips instead of clothing or toys.

The United states represents about 21% of the world's GDP. A little less than the entire European Union. It is of major importance in the world economy, and the rest of the world would suffer massively if it were to "take its ball and go home". We would also suffer equally if not more so, but it isn't like we'd all starve and be unable to do anything for ourselves.

Now if you turn that into "We'll play ball with everyone else, except you particular country that doesn't do what we want" well that country is basically cut off from more than 1/5th of the world's productivity by itself. The U.S. also tends to make its allies follow suit, and well that's a major incentive to do what it wants. Every country (that can) does the same thing and its called an embargo. It is an extreme tool, but it is used in some cases like North Korea and Iran. Even then its usually only partial and not complete isolation.

Every nation looks after their own self interests. Every nation should look after their own interests. The U.S.A. just has the biggest club to do that in terms of political power due to the size of its economy and the position it has on the world stage. The only question is if they hurt their long term interests (such as political relations) by advancing short term interests. To which I agree that it sometimes does.

oh and btw the reason china makes so many of those little things is because there are US companies over there,(you know cheaper labor) and if those companies had to make their products at home they can just at a higher cost which in turn would make jobs but i guess thats a bit over your head. Also the threat of doing something like this is known as "Big Stick" policiy and the UK was really good at it when it was the British Empire. Its actually the most simple political move and usually the strongest, its just not possible for many nations anymore. (before anyone may or may not be offended i could have used many othe countries as examples and chose the UK due to its ties to america and that perticular users relation to it, i did not mean it as an offence)

 

[BlueMage]

I'm not exactly well informed on this topic so can someone care to explain how exactly he could "press charges against the U.S. Gov" or how this exactly this is the U.S. overstepping its bounds? From what I can tell it was the N.Z. police that implemented the raid and handed over the data to the U.S. Gov. Wouldn't the only liable party (from a legal standpoint) be the N.Z. police who implemented the illegal raid which was only illegal due to the methods the N.Z. police used? All the U.S. did was press charges/accusations and push for it which they had jurisdiction to do so due to servers in Virginia. I'm not saying they were right to do so (as I don't really think the Megaupload company was doing anything illegal themselves) but it isn't like the U.S. didn't have the cooperation of the N.Z. government or jurisdiction rights. Again I'm not super informed on this type of thing so I'm genuinely asking for clarification.

You can't grow sufficient crops internally to support your population, you don't have the resources necessary internally to fuel your economy, you have little-to-no manufacturing capability.

Please tell me again how you need the rest of the world less than it needs you.

First I'm not agreeing with the other dude. I am a firm believer that the U.S. is better off participating in the global economy and would suffer greatly if it were for some reason to withdraw. However...

We are a net exporter of agricultural products [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States] which means we could feed ourselves

We have lots of natural resources compared to most other nations. In particular we have the largest coal deposits in the world, and have sizable deposits of most ores. It may not be enough to keep our industry going at the rate it currently does, but its not like it would grind to a halt.

We account for approximately 1/5th of the worlds manufacturing capability as of 2012. The largest manufacturing in the world. It represents about 1.6+ trillion in our 15+ trillion dollar yearly GDP. It would be the 8th largest economy in the world by itself [http://www.nist.gov/mep/upload/FINAL_NAM_REPORT_PAGES.pdf]. You don't see many of our goods on the shelf anymore because most of it tends to be high-end goods like gas turbines or computer chips instead of clothing or toys.

The United states represents about 21% of the world's GDP. A little less than the entire European Union. It is of major importance in the world economy, and the rest of the world would suffer massively if it were to "take its ball and go home". We would also suffer equally if not more so, but it isn't like we'd all starve and be unable to do anything for ourselves.

Now if you turn that into "We'll play ball with everyone else, except you particular country that doesn't do what we want" well that country is basically cut off from more than 1/5th of the world's productivity by itself. The U.S. also tends to make its allies follow suit, and well that's a major incentive to do what it wants. Every country (that can) does the same thing and its called an embargo. It is an extreme tool, but it is used in some cases like North Korea and Iran. Even then its usually only partial and not complete isolation.

Every nation looks after their own self interests. Every nation should look after their own interests. The U.S.A. just has the biggest club to do that in terms of political power due to the size of its economy and the position it has on the world stage. The only question is if they hurt their long term interests (such as political relations) by advancing short term interests. To which I agree that it sometimes does.

Finally, someone responding with facts instead of just chest-thumping. How rare and refreshing. And exactly what I was trying to draw out.

Captcha: bigger in texas. How appropriate.

 

[Suave Charlie]

oh and btw the reason china makes so many of those little things is because there are US companies over there,(you know cheaper labor) and if those companies had to make their products at home they can just at a higher cost which in turn would make jobs but i guess thats a bit over your head. Also the threat of doing something like this is known as "Big Stick" policiy and the UK was really good at it when it was the British Empire. Its actually the most simple political move and usually the strongest, its just not possible for many nations anymore. (before anyone may or may not be offended i could have used many othe countries as examples and chose the UK due to its ties to america and that perticular users relation to it, i did not mean it as an offence)

Seems like you didn't read my post there, since I acknowledged what he said but talked about issues beyond that which haven't been addressed. Still waiting on that.

And unless all the companies in China are american owned (hint, they're not) then isolationism will still screw the tertiary manufacturing. And also, the US is a net exporter of food, does that mean that you don't import any? So a lot of food will be unavailable to the citizens.

Isolationism isn't good for either your country or the global economy. Not sure why you'd even want to advocate it other than to engage in a dick measuring contest.

All of this is just making you look like the stupid stereotype of an american thinking that you're so superior to every foreigner and it's really trying.

 

[Navvan]

Snip

First let me point out once again I'm not supporting the other dude, and that I agree that he does give off the "stereotypical pro-American" vibe. The only reason I'm responding because you in turn give off the "stereotypical anti-American" vibe which may or may not be a reaction to the particular situation. Regardless I felt the urge to correct some misconceptions before (and now) which is the only reason I'm posting.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your counter points are

1. The U.S.A still imports food
2. Isolationism will still suck
3. China makes the low end goods that go into the U.S.A high end goods.

To which my responses are

1. Yes it does, but the point was that the country would be able to feed its citizens. The point wasn't that we'd be able to eat exactly the same. At least from my post.

2. Yes it would for a number of reasons. We'd have to re-arrange our economy and trade to something more akin before the globalization era and it would hinder us greatly. However it wouldn't necessarily mean the collapse of the the U.S.A if it were to happen. It would be a bad idea for everyone. However if you take that to a less extreme level (as mentioned in my previous post) such as country specific embargoes, tariffs or other means of controlling trade then you have a powerful tool without the huge hurt.

3. It is true China does produce a lot of things necessary for high-end manufacturing, and that helps us focus on higher end manufacturing. Other countries also contribute bits and pieces to allow for higher end manufacturing. That is the beauty of a global economy. However the point of my original post was to point out that the U.S.A. does have a lot of manufacturing muscle counter to popular belief. Once upon a time we did manufacture all those lower quality goods and there is no reason to believe that we couldn't do so again if necessary.

4. I point these things out because a lot of people simply view America as a consumer/nom-noming all the world's stuff or something to that effect. If that were the case the country would go under quickly. We produce more goods and services than any other single nation in the world. That is a fact.

To summarize my position. The world is better off with the U.S.A participating in a global economy and the U.S.A is is better off participating in a global economy. That doesn't mean that either need each other to survive. It would be stupid to completely cut oneself off from the entire world, it would be stupid to completely cut oneself off from the U.S.A, and it would be stupid to cut oneself off from E.U. or China. However cutting off trade to certain countries or other means of controlling trade is something that all countries do to push their agenda. The practice is as old as trade itself

The U.S.A has plenty of flaws to poke at. Education, income gaps, healthcare costs, and the like are all things that the U.S.A should be criticized for. Pushing its agenda through legal means is something that is not a legitimate complaint in my book. It is something all countries do, and something all countries should do. We simply are in the best position to do so at that moment, and thus the most successful at pushing our agenda. Whether we sometimes act counter to our own interests is another thing entirely and certainly up for debate.

 

[direkiller]

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.

it has more to do with Trading
The free market dose more to stop wars and piracy then the DOJ ever can

 

[theultimateend]

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?

Yeah, that was, um... wow.

This was my exact comment in words when I saw your amazing Avatar.

 

[Nenad]

please thyink what would happent o the world if we withdrawed all our millitary back to our country.

That would be nice actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat]

Pushing its agenda through legal means is something that is not a legitimate complaint in my book. It is something all countries do, and something all countries should do. We simply are in the best position to do so at that moment, and thus the most successful at pushing our agenda. Whether we sometimes act counter to our own interests is another thing entirely and certainly up for debate.

Pushing your agenda through the legal system I could take, but the rest speaks to me that it's still power (inside the law) that determines who get's their interests fulfilled. What if someone has better justified interests and can't push them because they don't have the power? It sets up a power based morality which is dangerous because it's arbitrary and based solely on the good (or bad) will of the power holder. Besides all that, what kind of civilization is made up out of nations that all look for their interests only? Especially in a global economy and ecology. If one large country screws up about radioactive waste or with economy everyone is in danger etc.

Sorry for the offtopic. On topic, while I did hear that Megaupload did do illegal things besides the legal YouTube-like service that's no reason to ignore the laws of prosecution.

 

[Navvan]

please thyink what would happent o the world if we withdrawed all our millitary back to our country.

That would be nice actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat]

Pushing its agenda through legal means is something that is not a legitimate complaint in my book. It is something all countries do, and something all countries should do. We simply are in the best position to do so at that moment, and thus the most successful at pushing our agenda. Whether we sometimes act counter to our own interests is another thing entirely and certainly up for debate.

Pushing your agenda through the legal system I could take, but the rest speaks to me that it's still power (inside the law) that determines who get's their interests fulfilled. What if someone has better justified interests and can't push them because they don't have the power? It sets up a power based morality which is dangerous because it's arbitrary and based solely on the good (or bad) will of the power holder. Besides all that, what kind of civilization is made up out of nations that all look for their interests only? Especially in a global economy and ecology. If one large country screws up about radioactive waste or with economy everyone is in danger etc.

Sorry for the offtopic. On topic, while I did hear that Megaupload did do illegal things besides the legal YouTube-like service that's no reason to ignore the laws of prosecution.

I said legally; not through the legal system. There is a significant difference. Yes it is all about power about who gets their interests fulfilled, but no one really has a monopoly on power. It isn't as simple as "I have the most power so I can do whatever I want". It is more along the lines of "I have the most power so I can do more of what I want than you can". A country should look out for their own interests, but that doesn't usually mean bullying others into submission, conquest, or other acts that assert your will over another . These things are often short term, and pursing them is often counter to the long term benefit of a country. Countries realize this and thus issue varying amounts of restraint. Cooperation is always the best route, but when there is a conflict of interest the only real way to solve it is by the one who has power. In the legal system there is a Judge and jury who can decide things but that is only because they tend to have greater power than either individual due to the backing of a nation. When nations dispute they don't have that constraint unless a far more powerful country/entity steps in, and well you can see where that logically concludes.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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?

Yeah, that was, um... wow.

This was my exact comment in words when I saw your amazing Avatar.

I chose it just because it's so damn cute, lol. Pichu likes to party!

 

[ecoho]

please thyink what would happent o the world if we withdrawed all our millitary back to our country.

That would be nice actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat]

Perhaps our (Americas) excess military personnel could teach him how to spell "think" "to" and "withdrew!"

im sorry my spell check is down and i happen to be dyslexic so spelling is a ***** for me,sorry if thats a problem for you.

snip

and you give off the typical "Anti-American" vibe so i think itll save us both time to just ignore each other and get on with our lives as anything we say to each other at this point will be taken as an insault

Snip

First let me point out once again I'm not supporting the other dude, and that I agree that he does give off the "stereotypical pro-American" vibe. The only reason I'm responding because you in turn give off the "stereotypical anti-American" vibe which may or may not be a reaction to the particular situation. Regardless I felt the urge to correct some misconceptions before (and now) which is the only reason I'm posting.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your counter points are

1. The U.S.A still imports food
2. Isolationism will still suck
3. China makes the low end goods that go into the U.S.A high end goods.

To which my responses are

1. Yes it does, but the point was that the country would be able to feed its citizens. The point wasn't that we'd be able to eat exactly the same. At least from my post.

2. Yes it would for a number of reasons. We'd have to re-arrange our economy and trade to something more akin before the globalization era and it would hinder us greatly. However it wouldn't necessarily mean the collapse of the the U.S.A if it were to happen. It would be a bad idea for everyone. However if you take that to a less extreme level (as mentioned in my previous post) such as country specific embargoes, tariffs or other means of controlling trade then you have a powerful tool without the huge hurt.

3. It is true China does produce a lot of things necessary for high-end manufacturing, and that helps us focus on higher end manufacturing. Other countries also contribute bits and pieces to allow for higher end manufacturing. That is the beauty of a global economy. However the point of my original post was to point out that the U.S.A. does have a lot of manufacturing muscle counter to popular belief. Once upon a time we did manufacture all those lower quality goods and there is no reason to believe that we couldn't do so again if necessary.

4. I point these things out because a lot of people simply view America as a consumer/nom-noming all the world's stuff or something to that effect. If that were the case the country would go under quickly. We produce more goods and services than any other single nation in the world. That is a fact.

To summarize my position. The world is better off with the U.S.A participating in a global economy and the U.S.A is is better off participating in a global economy. That doesn't mean that either need each other to survive. It would be stupid to completely cut oneself off from the entire world, it would be stupid to completely cut oneself off from the U.S.A, and it would be stupid to cut oneself off from E.U. or China. However cutting off trade to certain countries or other means of controlling trade is something that all countries do to push their agenda. The practice is as old as trade itself

The U.S.A has plenty of flaws to poke at. Education, income gaps, healthcare costs, and the like are all things that the U.S.A should be criticized for. Pushing its agenda through legal means is something that is not a legitimate complaint in my book. It is something all countries do, and something all countries should do. We simply are in the best position to do so at that moment, and thus the most successful at pushing our agenda. Whether we sometimes act counter to our own interests is another thing entirely and certainly up for debate.

im gonna jump off this thread as you right i am comeing off a bit "Gun-ho" and you are doing a much better job of explaining things then i am. I am sorry if anything ive said has offended you and hope you can forgive my very blunt and uncompromiseing posts before this.

 

[Suave Charlie]

and you give off the typical "Anti-American" vibe so i think itll save us both time to just ignore each other and get on with our lives as anything we say to each other at this point will be taken as an insault

Looking back I feel I was too anti-american, I usually like you guys but you rustled my jimmies when you came off, as I felt, as a bit imperialistic.

 

[Biodeamon]

wait, whats this?!

 

[Nenad]

A country should look out for their own interests, but that doesn't usually mean bullying others into submission, conquest, or other acts that assert your will over another. These things are often short term, and pursing them is often counter to the long term benefit of a country. Countries realize this and thus issue varying amounts of restraint.

I think acts of asserting your will over another can be useful in the long term. Or it's so long term, nobody cares because they aren't going to live long enough to see it fail. Combine that with only people in power making the decisions instead of nations as a whole (then I wouldn't have a problem with that, and even then there is the risk of "tyranny of the masses" which happened in Ancient Athens) and you've got a recipe for mistreating nations. But bullying other nations in that way would be illegal, right? And I suppose you think illegal pushing of interests is wrong with which I agree. So I guess we just have to fight the illegal kind. I would just add that because of what I already said we have to keep an eye on the governments so it doesn't make exploitative laws such as SOPA and PIPA.

If the governments really realized their long term interests, why didn't that realization reflect on the recent Rio+20 Environmental Summit? [http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/22/analysis-rio-20-epic-fail/] Why is there only 10 words (out of 514) like "must" and "will" (as in, must lower environmental pollution) in the document that deals with the future of worlds' ecology? [http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?205248]

Cooperation is always the best route, but when there is a conflict of interest the only real way to solve it is by the one who has power. In the legal system there is a Judge and jury who can decide things but that is only because they tend to have greater power than either individual due to the backing of a nation. When nations dispute they don't have that constraint unless a far more powerful country/entity steps in, and well you can see where that logically concludes.

I believe we badly need international/global courts for that XD

On topic: I hear this a good balanced article about the Magaupload case. [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload/]

 

[Navvan]

Snip

And I suppose you think illegal pushing of interests is wrong with which I agree. So I guess we just have to fight the illegal kind.

I would consider something to be illegal if it violates human rights or International law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law] in general.

I think acts of asserting your will over another can be useful in the long term.

Theoretically I suppose it is possible, but I am unaware of it ever working indefinitely. In the cases it was temporary successful (such as the Roman Empire or Mongolian Empire) there was a major monopoly of power that can no longer exist today because it requires continuous conquest that simply isn't possible with the level of globalization and nuclear weapons of the modern age. That is the way I see it anyway. That isn't to say its impossible to push your will onto another, but I don't see it as ever being good in the long run in our current era of globalization.

I would just add that because of what I already said we have to keep an eye on the governments so it doesn't make exploitative laws such as SOPA and PIPA.

Now we're moving into intranational affairs. It is entirely the duty and right of every citizen to make sure their nation is acting in their interest the same way it is the duty of a nation to act in their own interest.

If the governments really realized their long term interests, why didn't that realization reflect on the recent Rio+20 Environmental Summit? [http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/22/analysis-rio-20-epic-fail/] Why is there only 10 words (out of 514) like "must" and "will" (as in, must lower environmental pollution) in the document that deals with the future of worlds' ecology? [http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?205248]

They do realize their long term interest (for example there would be no summit at all if they did not), but there is always a balance between short-term and long term interests. For an extreme example it does no good if you address an issue that will become relevant 100 years from now instead of an issue that is 5 years into the future and leads to your collapse or hardships. This happens if your short term interests directly conflict with your long term interests and the tricky part is balancing the two. Sometimes nations do well in balancing it, and sometimes they don't.

I believe we badly need international/global courts for that XD

Well there is such a thing as an international court [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_court]. The problem is that no matter how you set it up you'll need member nations to supply the power of the court, and the member nation with the most power will have greater influence or immunity. It works to an extent, and is certainly better than nothing, but it still leaves a differential of power.

 

[maninahat]

Surprisingly no mention of immigrants or paedophiles, considering the source is the Grauniad.

... so anyway, does this mean we'll be getting MegaUpload back? [sub]Stop sniggering back there! I'm serious![/sub]

Aren't you getting it mixed up with the Daily Mail? Oh wait, no, if that wre the case, there would also be a reference to how piracy causes cancer, and how Diana would know exactly what to do about it.