Megaupload Wins Evidence Disclosure Battle

[Fudj]

Its stupid acts like ignoring the process of the law, or not approaching it in the correct way that get cases thrown out of court.

So as guilty or not as someone is of something, they can then get away with it on a technicality, happens far to often, in their zeal to "get them pirates" The U.S goverment may have ignored some steps they needeed to take, and because of that they may very well lose on those grounds.

It becomes less about providing evidence to the contrary for the defence as it becomes more about proving that the goverment didnt do it properly.

 

[maninahat]

Megaupload did remove illegal content, they just didn't have the staff to remove it faster than it was uploaded.

Like asking one janitor to clean up after several hundred monkeys all flinging poo at the wall...

Megaupload might have a veritable infestation of pirated/illegal material, but that's on the people uploading, not the company itself. Would be nice to see the JD get a good swift slap upside the head for these shenanigans, Gibbs style.

Agreed, but what is a health inspector to do when faced with an infestation of poo slinging monkeys, other than close the establishment down?

Places like youtube and megaupload are rife with copyright violations - and if those companies admit they are incapable of stopping crimes being committed on their turf, doesn't that end up justifying their closure? I can't ever see it happening with youtube, but megaupload shows that if the janitors aren't working fast enough, the assholes with clipboards will eventually turn up at the door.

 

[Baresark]

Hmmm, well there are a number of problems here.

At it's core the US goverment does have a point. What's more where the US goverment generally has a problem in not really understanding what they are dealing with, in this case there actions are pretty much appropriate. Simply put, there is no other viable way of going after an international, telecommunications based business like Megaupload than the avenue they pursued. Megaupload is more or less hiding behind it's international status to basically argue that no goverment could viably go after them without stepping on something.

Ultimatly the treaties in force for things like extraditions exist for the specific reason of forcing criminals accused of a crime by another country to stand trial in that country. The whole point of the treaty is that it doesn't nessicarly require what someone did to be a crime in the country they are being extradited from. The agreement being that both countries will turn over criminals wanted for crimes in another country.

In this case it's pretty black and white, as I understand things New Zealand does indeed have an extradition treaty with the US (which is why they are not defending it that way), that makes this an administrative matter, not a Judicial one, because the whole idea is to bring the guy to the US to stand trial in the Judicial system to find out if he's guilty or not... and that's in keeping with the agreement. The evidence the US has is more or less irrelevent to the treaty in question, as the whole idea is that it's a simple matter of us wanting to arrest him.

From where I'm sitting, a lot of people are happy to see New Zealand sticking it to the US, and others are pretty much cheering for a file sharing site fighting against the goverment with a degree of sense. The bottom line here is that there is enough evidence to bring this to trial, whether Megaupload is guilty or not, and that's why pre-existing agreements for exradition exist. Sending the guy to the US at this point isn't convicting him, it's simply forcing him to have to face the court.

I have mixed opinions on the issue itself, but I generally come down as being just as anti-pirate as I am anti-industry.

I'll also say that thumbing your nose at the US isn't the wisest move over something like this, because when the time comes and New Zealand wants our help with a crime (and it will happen given time) we're just as likely to do the same thing now, as New Zealand isn't holding up their end of things. Fears over this "becoming an administrative matter" are ridiculous because that's what it is, there is no need to provide evidence to prove him guilty at the moment as the whole idea is to bring it to trial, he hasn't bene convicted of anything. The evidence isn't needed until the trial begins, and by definition evidence and the circulation there of is kept under wraps before a trial begins. The more that stuff is circulated, the harder it is to get untainted jurors (one way or another) and the last thing we need is New Zealand going to the press and revealing what the evidence is, knowing dang well that with the interest this case ha garnered it's going to feed back into the US media and people will hear about it.

The judge doesn't want to see evidence of the defendants guilt, he wants to see there is actually evidence against the defendant before he is shipped off to another country to go on trial. He is defending his countryman, which is what a judge should do in any case. He wants to see that there is evidence against the defendant and not just a bunch of claims of evidence. I'm not from NZ, but I'm guessing it's not that different from the US where people have a right to defend themselves.

Captcha: Dueling Banjos

 

[Baresark]

Megaupload did remove illegal content, they just didn't have the staff to remove it faster than it was uploaded.

Like asking one janitor to clean up after several hundred monkeys all flinging poo at the wall...

Megaupload might have a veritable infestation of pirated/illegal material, but that's on the people uploading, not the company itself. Would be nice to see the JD get a good swift slap upside the head for these shenanigans, Gibbs style.

Agreed, but what is a health inspector to do when faced with an infestation of poo slinging monkeys, other than close the establishment down?

Places like youtube and megaupload are rife with copyright violations - and if those companies admit they are incapable of stopping crimes being committed on their turf, doesn't that end up justifying their closure? I can't ever see it happening with youtube, but megaupload shows that if the janitors aren't working fast enough, the assholes with clipboards will eventually turn up at the door.

The only issue with that is there seems to be a majority of it's ridiculous sized user base that is using it in a perfectly legal manner. It's kindergarten politics to punish everyone because a few (few meant in relative terms) people abuse or misuse the system. I know it has become accepted in society (referencing the US, where I'm from, not sure about you so I apologize if I botched it really bad) to punish everyone on the playground by removing playtime just because two kids got into a fight. But in real life that is a destructive way of running things.

 

[Pyrian]

...if those companies admit they are incapable of stopping crimes being committed on their turf, doesn't that end up justifying their closure?

Does that apply anywhere else? Do we shut down 7/11 because they can't stop robberies at convenience stores?

 

[Dryk]

The US government destroyed MegaUpload anyway, they probably won't see this as much of a set-back

 

[Wicky_42]

Lol - someone standing up to the US's bullshit? That's gonna confuse some folks ^_^

Finding this whole thing quite amusing

 

[Chairman Miaow]

"eeergh Why do people hate the U.S so much wahhh" Because its always your govournment pulling shit like this all the time..fuck sake...if any other country threw throughs their weight around like that they get punched..now that ive got that off my chest.. I had a feeling that this case wasnt going to go through from day 1..im all for dotcom sueing for damages.

Well, it seems not a single person said anything near that, and it seems everyone is in agreement that this was handled poorly. So... Might want to that the quote you have up there and send it back to imaginary land.

OT: Honestly, I feel that Megaupload did need to be shutdown (and I think I remember that the providers were actually encouraging pirating? Pretty sure I remember that correctly, but dont quote me), so +1 on that. The U.S. Judicial System really needs to be looked over though (like the rest of the government), and learn that the our whole system was based off of fair trials, even if the accused seems 100% guilty. Innocent until proven guilty.

Megaupload was extremely useful and simple for quick, legal filesharing, and there aren't really any replacements that match up, and taking it down has hurt piracy exactly 0% Most pirates use torrents, and those that didn't, probably now are.

 

[Sougo]

I'd be fun to see Mr. Dotcom sue the US Govn. for losses incurred while the govn wondered what the hell to do with all the stuff they arbitrarily confiscated.

Well, someone has to tell the US government that they can't prance around the world with their dong hanging out of their pants.

 

[maninahat]

...if those companies admit they are incapable of stopping crimes being committed on their turf, doesn't that end up justifying their closure?

Does that apply anywhere else? Do we shut down 7/11 because they can't stop robberies at convenience stores?

Not a good analogy, because those are criminals taking something from the business, rather than the business accommodating or abetting crime activity. So no, it doesn't apply there - you can't blame a business for being robbed, but you can blame it for allowing criminal activity on its premises (e.g if 7/11's had a thriving cockfighting business in its back rooms).

 

[Zeetchmen]

Dat US police state

Hope Megaupload wins and we can see it back on our internets

 

[maninahat]

Megaupload did remove illegal content, they just didn't have the staff to remove it faster than it was uploaded.

Like asking one janitor to clean up after several hundred monkeys all flinging poo at the wall...

Megaupload might have a veritable infestation of pirated/illegal material, but that's on the people uploading, not the company itself. Would be nice to see the JD get a good swift slap upside the head for these shenanigans, Gibbs style.

Agreed, but what is a health inspector to do when faced with an infestation of poo slinging monkeys, other than close the establishment down?

Places like youtube and megaupload are rife with copyright violations - and if those companies admit they are incapable of stopping crimes being committed on their turf, doesn't that end up justifying their closure? I can't ever see it happening with youtube, but megaupload shows that if the janitors aren't working fast enough, the assholes with clipboards will eventually turn up at the door.

The only issue with that is there seems to be a majority of it's ridiculous sized user base that is using it in a perfectly legal manner. It's kindergarten politics to punish everyone because a few (few meant in relative terms) people abuse or misuse the system. I know it has become accepted in society (referencing the US, where I'm from, not sure about you so I apologize if I botched it really bad) to punish everyone on the playground by removing playtime just because two kids got into a fight. But in real life that is a destructive way of running things.

I agree with that - going with the inspector analogy again, it is easy to see things from the perspective of the innocent folk who used the premise properly, without throwing their poo. They've been punished for someone else's crime.

The problem with that argument is that it switches the blame from the janitor to the inspector. Now he's the bad guy for doing his job. Logically, they should be still directing their anger at the janitor, for letting standards slip and necessitating a health inspection. It is the janitor's fault the place closed down, even if it was the inspector who forced it to close down.

Saying that, there are still criticisms to be made about the whole fiasco. The honest users of megaupload got screwed over - losing all that data without any real fore-warning. That's a case of the inspector being the bad guy (as well).

 

[BehattedWanderer]

If they walk because the JD didn't do it by the book, then this will be a good reminder that we are not above the law, that even the government must obey it's established chains of action. Awaiting further news, then.

 

[AnarchistFish]

That and the fact that this whole debacle has effectively gimped file sharing over the internet unless you want to use torrents or get your own hosting (or use email attachments, bleh). I miss Megaupload.

Doing it wrong. It's barely any harder if you know what to do.

But you gotta consider everybody who doesn't know what they're doing. It was still probably the fastest and most convenient way to send stuff over the net without any prerequisites.

There's loads of file-sharing sites though

 

['Record Stops.']

Amazing, this is the best news I've heard all day. Sorry for how much of a jerkhole my government is, we Americans are dealing with the stupidity of our government as best we can.

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler: snip

Hmmm, well there are a number of problems here.

At it's core the US goverment does have a point. What's more where the US goverment generally has a problem in not really understanding what they are dealing with, in this case there actions are pretty much appropriate. Simply put, there is no other viable way of going after an international, telecommunications based business like Megaupload than the avenue they pursued. Megaupload is more or less hiding behind it's international status to basically argue that no goverment could viably go after them without stepping on something.

Ultimatly the treaties in force for things like extraditions exist for the specific reason of forcing criminals accused of a crime by another country to stand trial in that country. The whole point of the treaty is that it doesn't nessicarly require what someone did to be a crime in the country they are being extradited from. The agreement being that both countries will turn over criminals wanted for crimes in another country.

In this case it's pretty black and white, as I understand things New Zealand does indeed have an extradition treaty with the US (which is why they are not defending it that way), that makes this an administrative matter, not a Judicial one, because the whole idea is to bring the guy to the US to stand trial in the Judicial system to find out if he's guilty or not... and that's in keeping with the agreement. The evidence the US has is more or less irrelevent to the treaty in question, as the whole idea is that it's a simple matter of us wanting to arrest him.

From where I'm sitting, a lot of people are happy to see New Zealand sticking it to the US, and others are pretty much cheering for a file sharing site fighting against the goverment with a degree of sense. The bottom line here is that there is enough evidence to bring this to trial, whether Megaupload is guilty or not, and that's why pre-existing agreements for exradition exist. Sending the guy to the US at this point isn't convicting him, it's simply forcing him to have to face the court.

I have mixed opinions on the issue itself, but I generally come down as being just as anti-pirate as I am anti-industry.

I'll also say that thumbing your nose at the US isn't the wisest move over something like this, because when the time comes and New Zealand wants our help with a crime (and it will happen given time) we're just as likely to do the same thing now, as New Zealand isn't holding up their end of things. Fears over this "becoming an administrative matter" are ridiculous because that's what it is, there is no need to provide evidence to prove him guilty at the moment as the whole idea is to bring it to trial, he hasn't bene convicted of anything. The evidence isn't needed until the trial begins, and by definition evidence and the circulation there of is kept under wraps before a trial begins. The more that stuff is circulated, the harder it is to get untainted jurors (one way or another) and the last thing we need is New Zealand going to the press and revealing what the evidence is, knowing dang well that with the interest this case ha garnered it's going to feed back into the US media and people will hear about it.

Disclosure rules exist for a reason: to give the defendant's lawyers a chance of preparing their case. Right now it's only known he is accused of copyright infringement (along with a bunch of related legalese), but not whose copyright exactly it was he infringed.
This would be equivalent of you getting charged for robbery, without ever being told whom exactly it is you're supposed to have robbed - leaving you to defend against unknown evidence in an unknown crime in court.

An extradition request indeed does not require a guilty verdict. However, what happened here involved a few serious shortcuts in correct legal proceedings - and Megaupload's lawyers are correct to try and burn the case to the ground on every single missed comma in the veritable deluge of accusations that's been coming their way.

Quite frankly I do hope he wins it. A conviction would set an extremely worrisome precedent in both the legality of this flavour of cowboy justice, and the whole deal with charging data storage / transfer services for the misdeeds of their customers.

 

[Therumancer]

Ultimatly the treaties in force for things like extraditions exist for the specific reason of forcing criminals accused of a crime by another country to stand trial in that country. The whole point of the treaty is that it doesn't nessicarly require what someone did to be a crime in the country they are being extradited from. The agreement being that both countries will turn over criminals wanted for crimes in another country.

I'm pretty sure that I've done things which would be illegal in Saudi Arabia. Should I be extradited there and stoned to death?

OT: Aww, how cute, America's taking after its daddy, Britain during the colonial era.

Ultimatly the treaties in force for things like extraditions exist for the specific reason of forcing criminals accused of a crime by another country to stand trial in that country. The whole point of the treaty is that it doesn't nessicarly require what someone did to be a crime in the country they are being extradited from. The agreement being that both countries will turn over criminals wanted for crimes in another country.

I'm pretty sure that I've done things which would be illegal in Saudi Arabia. Should I be extradited there and stoned to death?

OT: Aww, how cute, America's taking after its daddy, Britain during the colonial era.

If The US agreed to an extradition treaty that allowed for that, then yes. That's the entire point of such treaties, to prevent criminals from one country to flee to another nation to avoid punishment. This is why when white collar criminals flee and so on, they always head to a relatively pleasant nation without a treaty.

I do not know if Saudi Arabia has a treaty of that sort with the US, or what terms are attached to it.

Technically if you were extradited to Saudi Arabia it would be to stand trial, not to automatically be stoned to death. As a US citizen, you'd have the US Embassy on your side. There is a good chance that other agreements would prevent them from executing you, but they might be able to put you in jail. Assuming such a thing even exists.

If the US has an agreement like that with a country like that, and we're seeing US citizens stones, then it's the agreement you complain about, and perhaps formally withdraw from. You don't just decide "meh, we're not going to abide by it".

In this case it's entirely differant as we're dealing with what is fundementally a white collar crime, and it's between New Zealand and the USA. The Death Penelty isn't even under consideration for something like this, it's entirely about assets and jail time if he's found guilty. Right now all that's being demanded is that he stand trial in the US.

Truthfully if things go far enough, he could be tried in absentia (which can happen) and then if he continues to hide in New Zealand the entire extradition demands COULD be about having him extradited for punishment, which is even messier.

The differance between the US and British Empire is largely that the US doesn't strong arm people the same way, even though I personally think we should (which is another discussion). In this case it's an issue because New Zealand entered into an agreement with the US. If we were the British Empire we'd just bring our navy in and massacre civilians from a distance and wreck shipping until New Zealand turned the guy over.

See, the British Empire pretty much sailed in, set up colonies, and then declared fealty from those colonies, and that everyone else in an area around one of their colonies whether set up by them or not do whatever they say, under pain of getting massacred.

Sure, we could act the same way, we could kick New Zealand's butt until they did whatever we said. We could kill a couple million civilians and have them hand us the guy on a silver platter. In the end though the US isn't likely to do that, we're more likely to just refuse to help New Zealand regardless of other agreements down the road, or make their lives increasingly miserable. The time will come when New Zealand is likely to want the help of US resources in a similar matter and we might just say "no" to be buttheads like they are doing now. Likewise things don't always have to be direct, the Aussies, all politics aside, are kind of our buddies. They won't do anything insane, but the bottom line if New Zealand isn't playing by the rules there might some tendency from the Aussies to make life a little more difficult than usual for their neighbors. Especially seeing as New Zealand not abiding by such an agreement (with nothing major at stake in the big picture no less) means that if it gets away with it, it might not abide by other agreements. If New Zealand had a valid reason it would be one thing, but it doesn't, as it's "reason" contridicts the entire reason for such a treaty to begin with. The very arguement of this being a "judicial matter" rather than an "administrative one" defeats the purpose of a treaty like this to begin with.... and while not mentioned I'm guessing that's the bottom line.

 

[Therumancer]

Hmmm, well there are a number of problems here.

*snip*

Ultimatly the treaties in force for things like extraditions exist for the specific reason of forcing criminals accused of a crime by another country to stand trial in that country. The whole point of the treaty is that it doesn't nessicarly require what someone did to be a crime in the country they are being extradited from. The agreement being that both countries will turn over criminals wanted for crimes in another country.

In this case it's pretty black and white, as I understand things New Zealand does indeed have an extradition treaty with the US (which is why they are not defending it that way), that makes this an administrative matter, not a Judicial one, because the whole idea is to bring the guy to the US to stand trial in the Judicial system to find out if he's guilty or not... and that's in keeping with the agreement. The evidence the US has is more or less irrelevent to the treaty in question, as the whole idea is that it's a simple matter of us wanting to arrest him.

From where I'm sitting, a lot of people are happy to see New Zealand sticking it to the US, and others are pretty much cheering for a file sharing site fighting against the goverment with a degree of sense. The bottom line here is that there is enough evidence to bring this to trial, whether Megaupload is guilty or not, and that's why pre-existing agreements for exradition exist. Sending the guy to the US at this point isn't convicting him, it's simply forcing him to have to face the court.

*snip*

So glad someone understands the Extradition process. If I recall correctly though, the extradition itself needs to be filed with evidence of the crime to prevent countries from simply taking people without cause. With that should be a release of evidence to the accused and their attorney to see if they can fight it with a simple hearing, more or less a preliminary hearing to determine if there's enough evidence for a trial, have those in the States all the time for non-extradition cases. In that respect Dotcom has grounds depending on New Zealand's laws, which I don't know, but that matter has been resolved. The more pressing matter is the takedown of MU, which, since it was done by the US government, is in violation of US laws. It gets into the grey area of "Does the US judicial system have to follow its Constitutional mandates when processecuting a non-US entity?" Since the answer of that question is "yes", unless they were deemed an enemy of the state and under martial law for some stupid reason, then the dismissal will likely go through. If they had been willing to follow procedure, there could have been a trial but they royally botched the handling of the case and it will likely be dismissed.

Not really, the idea is "administrative" as they put it, not judicial. The basic idea is that he's wanted for trial in the US, it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence at this point. New Zealand is basically under an obligation to hand him over for trial. If the case is BS or doesn't stand, then he will of course be found innocent and set free. No case is 100% certain, and if any kind of doubt being present (legally or otherwise) was grounds for a country to refuse extradition, it would defeat the entire purpose.

Now if the guy was a convicted criminal already, and had specifically applied for and received asylum from the goverment of New Zealand, then it would be a differant kind of issue. That would be between the embassies, and at a much higher level. As things stand now nobody is even saying this guy is a criminal, just that he needs to stand trial, how sloppy the case is, is irrelevent, he's been called. New Zealand is apparently in violation of an existing treaty. By definition what it thinks about the case (legally) is irrelevent which is part of the entire point of the treaty. All that matters is that the guy is wanted in the US, and it would be the same if someone wanted for trial in New Zealand hid in the US.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Big corporations are backing this trial. US will flex its muscles, because if there's one thing that can get the government to really push for things, it's big corporations backing them.