Megaupload Wins Evidence Disclosure Battle

[Therumancer]

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.

funnily enough you seem to forget that New Zeland had an agreement that the evidence would not be taken so fast, its not a problem of NZ sticking it to the US, its more of a problem that the US gov is being "muscled" by the entertainment industry to step on the treaty the US already had with NZ... something everyone knows is happening, and as such every step the US is taking will be scrutinized because we know there are third parties involved that might make the system vulnerable to doing things that fall outside of the law...

like it haves happened over and over again...

Not really, because the evidence is more or less irrelevent at this point. The guy is being extradited for trial, not for punishment. As far as extradition treaties go, whether the guy is guilty or innocent is more or less irrelevent, as that has yet to be determined. A country being able to say "nah, we don't think the guy is guilty so we're not going to make him stand trial" defeats the entire purpose of such a pre-arranged treaty, turning it into a simple request made from one goverment to another on the spot.

As I said, New Zealand is sticking it to the US, the entire "Administrative Vs. Judicial Matter" thing shows that, because this is an Administrative act of simply getting him into the US system, people can say the case is sloppy, but the bottom is that we know nothing at this point because there hasn't been a trial. If the case is really that crappy, he shouldn't have much to worry about to begin with.

 

[Therumancer]

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

The point of an extradition treaty is specifically that the person's relative status in the country they are being extradited from is irrelevent. Indeed the person there might not even have comitted a crime under that law, but within that of the nation they are being extradited to. All that matters in this case is that the guy is wanted for trial in the US, the merits of the case, and how New Zealand might perceive the issue, are more or less irrelevent. New Zealand is treating this as a general request from the US goverment, as opposed to a matter of treaty which it is.

The guy DOES have the right to defend himself, but to do it under US law and within the US Judicial system. If the case is weak, so much the better for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he has to answer the charges under US law, and the country shielding him agreed to that well before hand.

As I said, it's an administrative matter, the policy is that if the guy is wanted by the US for trial and says "give us the guy" those who agreed to do so by treaty, do it. It's not supposed to be a Judicial matter where the case can be reviewed and that acting as a basis for releasing the guy or not.

Now if the guy was convicted and had received political asylum that would be differant, but that's not what's going on here.

 

[Buizel91]

"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.

Urm, not to sound like a complete muppet, But wasn't Mega-upload just a video upload site just like Youtube, or google Video's, or any other site like them?

If that's the case shouldn't they be in the same boat?

America...seriously, use your common se...wait, nevermind...xD

 

[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.

Urm, not to sound like a complete muppet, But wasn't Mega-upload just a video upload site just like Youtube, or google Video's, or any other site like them?

If that's the case shouldn't they be in the same boat?

America...seriously, use your common se...wait, nevermind...xD

Nah it hosted files as well. I used it all the time.

 

[Frylock72]

Hmmm, well there are a number of problems here.

snip

It's scary that you think an extradition treaty should be honored without proof of a crime committed in the first place. Do you understand what you're saying? You're saying that its okay to just ship someone off whether or not there's proof of their actual crime. That's a gross violation of civil rights.

We should be cheering for New Zealand because the US would absolutely be doing the same thing for any criminal that the other country wanted, as well they should. It's also pretty pessimistic of you to think that New Zealand would be so immature as to release sensitive evidence to the public. If you're worried about 'tainted jurors', then you should be mad at the US for going Wild West on Megaupload in the first place, instead of following actual law.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

All of your points about the case are ones that apply within the US legal system. All the evidence he's entitled to will be presented, the issue right now is for him to enter into the US system, and face trial like anyone else who committed a crime in this country.

As far as the rest goes, I have to say that I disagree with you. For one I think a very strong, and nessicary, statement is being made here by extraditing this guy (or trying to) as it shows the US isn't going to stop just because someone thumbs their nose from IP laws from ouside of the country.

As far as going after service providers, one of the problems with this area of law is that it has few precedents set with it, and that's what putting cases like this on trial is all about. See, right now we (as observers) don't know what that evidence is any more than New Zealand does, all we know is that the goverment thinks it has a direction it can go in. If the guy is right, then by all means he'll win the trial, but we don't know that which is why there needs to be one. New Zealand isn't handing the guy over to be punished, but rather to stand trial. The evidence is being handled like any other case in the US to the best of my knowlege.

 

[Aeonknight]

Hmmm, well there are a number of problems here.

snip

It's scary that you think an extradition treaty should be honored without proof of a crime committed in the first place. Do you understand what you're saying? You're saying that its okay to just ship someone off whether or not there's proof of their actual crime. That's a gross violation of civil rights.

We should be cheering for New Zealand because the US would absolutely be doing the same thing for any criminal that the other country wanted, as well they should. It's also pretty pessimistic of you to think that New Zealand would be so immature as to release sensitive evidence to the public. If you're worried about 'tainted jurors', then you should be mad at the US for going Wild West on Megaupload in the first place, instead of following actual law.

And said Wild West antics will get the case thrown out once he gets here. But that's an entirely different matter. The US was just following the procedures for extradition that were agreed to by NZ wayyy before this issue. But NZ wants to turn the hearing into the trial itself, which is skipping steps in the judicial process. Just like how the US skipped steps with their Wild West antics. Neither of them is in the right.

 

[lacktheknack]

Since my feelings on a piracy are a well documented and often lamented fact of the forums I won't revoice them here. However I will come down in support of this development.

Yes, shocking isn't it?

snip

WHOOOOOAAAA

But yeah, I agree. This case is hardly about the piracy anymore.

 

[nathan-dts]

This is some very good news, the way the US government is handling the Megaupload case is disgusting.

>Implying the US are usually not corrupt.

 

[Frylock72]

And said Wild West antics will get the case thrown out once he gets here. But that's an entirely different matter. The US was just following the procedures for extradition that were agreed to by NZ wayyy before this issue. But NZ wants to turn the hearing into the trial itself, which is skipping steps in the judicial process. Just like how the US skipped steps with their Wild West antics. Neither of them is in the right.

So you're saying that you're okay with not knowing what you're being charged with and any evidence that may exist proving it just because two nations agreed to a treaty? Whether or not you're innocent or guilty, you shouldn't be force-flown to the country of the crime committed without proof.

If the US is in the right, then showing the evidence shouldn't be a problem. Hiding things and saying 'just bring him here and we'll resolve everything' is suspicious. Doesn't that make any sense?

 

[Therumancer]

Hmmm, well there are a number of problems here.

snip

It's scary that you think an extradition treaty should be honored without proof of a crime committed in the first place. Do you understand what you're saying? You're saying that its okay to just ship someone off whether or not there's proof of their actual crime. That's a gross violation of civil rights.

We should be cheering for New Zealand because the US would absolutely be doing the same thing for any criminal that the other country wanted, as well they should. It's also pretty pessimistic of you to think that New Zealand would be so immature as to release sensitive evidence to the public. If you're worried about 'tainted jurors', then you should be mad at the US for going Wild West on Megaupload in the first place, instead of following actual law.

That's the entire point of an extradition treaty, whether you agree with it or not. It was something agreed to by both parties.

Understand also (something people here seem to have an issue with) the guy hasn't been convicted of any crime, he is not being turned over to the US to be put in jail or whatever. He's been ACCUSED of a crime, and is being extradited to stand trial. That trial is where the evidence comes out and a desician of guilt or innocence is made. The idea isn't for him to have multiple trials, if that was the case there would be no need for a treaty like this to begin with.

Fundementally this is no differant than some guy being transported from say California to Connecticut for trial, except in this case it's another country, a country which agreed to participate in such a system.

See, I disagree with any kind of civil rights violation being involved here, because it's not like the guy isn't going to be tried. All that's being done is making him go to trial.

To be honest the US is actually being bloody nice about it, in theory we could try him in Absentia, convict him to the highest extent the law allows, and then demand New Zealand hand him over. This would turn it from a treaty issue, to New Zealand harbouring a fugitive, and would get a LOT of countries that rely on things like extradition treaties, global law enforcement (Interpol, etc..) and the like upset because it effectively challenges the entire system, and would put New Zealand in a position of either turning the guy over to be thrown in an American jail, or being tossed from the system entirely, and then next time New Zealand needed international resources they wouldn't be there.

... and yes, in the US people CAN be tried in Absentia if they can't be brought before trial. It doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. People that are concerned about the case and what precedent this might set should actually be demanding this guy be turned over because honestly if the guy isn't there to defend himself and at least mitigate the state's case, the precedent is going to happen without any defense being present at all.

I mean I do get it, I'm not a big fan of the goverment going after file sharing sites either, BUT at the same time this isn't the way to try and stand it off.

 

[HentMas]

_snip_
Not really, because the evidence is more or less irrelevant at this point. The guy is being extradited for trial, not for punishment. As far as extradition treaties go, whether the guy is guilty or innocent is more or less irrelevent, as that has yet to be determined. A country being able to say "nah, we don't think the guy is guilty so we're not going to make him stand trial" defeats the entire purpose of such a pre-arranged treaty, turning it into a simple request made from one goverment to another on the spot.

As I said, New Zealand is sticking it to the US, the entire "Administrative Vs. Judicial Matter" thing shows that, because this is an Administrative act of simply getting him into the US system, people can say the case is sloppy, but the bottom is that we know nothing at this point because there hasn't been a trial. If the case is really that crappy, he shouldn't have much to worry about to begin with.

Well... I think I get what you are saying, the only thing that I could add to this is that regardless of what the "case" is, the treaty established something that the US didn´t uphold (not taking the evidence that fast)

and if they can´t keep the treaty they made, how can they trust that their citizen will be treated fairly?

and how could the government then stop the US from taking whoever they want without proof that he is indeed a criminal and breaking the US laws?

just my opinion but I think if they are going to "nitpick" it should be in matters like this which could set precedent for future cases.

also reading this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom makes me feel uneasy about the way things are being handled, but that´s just me.

 

[viranimus]

Wow...Someone with authority used that authority to do the right thing?

I think I love you Kiwis!

Thank you for restoring a little faith.

 

[infinity_turtles]

...You're massively simplifying the extradition process. Most extradition treaties require prima facie, and even then they have multiple appeals they can first file in their own country before being handed over.

That trial is where the evidence comes out and a desician of guilt or innocence is made. The idea isn't for him to have multiple trials, if that was the case there would be no need for a treaty like this to begin with.

You're right in that there doesn't need to be multiple trials. However evidence doesn't first come out during a trial. The trial is where it's evaluated and argued. The parties involved get access to it much sooner then that, and in extradition cases so does the country that receives the extradition request, so that prima facie can be determined.

Also, the US extradition treaty with New Zealand states the following.

"The request shall be accompanied by a description of the person sought, a statement of the facts of the case, the text
of the applicable laws of the requesting Party including the law defining the offense, the law prescribing the pun-ishment for the offense, and the law relating to the limitation of the legal proceedings.
When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a warrant of
arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting Party and by such evidence as, according to the laws
of the requested Party, would justify his arrest and committal for trial if the offense had been committed there, including
evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of arrest refers."

and

"If the requested Party requires additional evidence or information to enable it to decide on the request for extradi-tion, such evidence or information shall be submitted to it within such time as that Party shall require.
If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is not suffi-cient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested Party, he shall be
discharged from custody. However, such discharge shall not bar the requesting Party from submitting another request in respect of the same offense."

 

[Therumancer]

_snip_
Not really, because the evidence is more or less irrelevant at this point. The guy is being extradited for trial, not for punishment. As far as extradition treaties go, whether the guy is guilty or innocent is more or less irrelevent, as that has yet to be determined. A country being able to say "nah, we don't think the guy is guilty so we're not going to make him stand trial" defeats the entire purpose of such a pre-arranged treaty, turning it into a simple request made from one goverment to another on the spot.

As I said, New Zealand is sticking it to the US, the entire "Administrative Vs. Judicial Matter" thing shows that, because this is an Administrative act of simply getting him into the US system, people can say the case is sloppy, but the bottom is that we know nothing at this point because there hasn't been a trial. If the case is really that crappy, he shouldn't have much to worry about to begin with.

Well... I think I get what you are saying, the only thing that I could add to this is that regardless of what the "case" is, the treaty established something that the US didn´t uphold (not taking the evidence that fast)

and if they can´t keep the treaty they made, how can they trust that their citizen will be treated fairly?

and how could the government then stop the US from taking whoever they want without proof that he is indeed a criminal and breaking the US laws?

just my opinion but I think if they are going to "nitpick" it should be in matters like this which could set precedent for future cases.

also reading this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom makes me feel uneasy about the way things are being handled, but that´s just me.

The basic issue involved is tha New Zealand wants to stick it to the US, as a lot of countries want to. What's more, the guys involved in Megaupload have a LOT of money and are doubtlessly paying off the New Zealand goverment as happens in most of these cases involving rich people (both foreign and abroad). It's a pretty straightforward thing in how this is supposed to be handled.

As far as the situation itself goes, he's NOT a criminal, he's not being called one, he's being extradited to stand trial because he might be one. He doesn't become a criminal unless he loses the case and is convicted. Simply having the trial is what this is all about. The point of an extradition treaty is that whether they guy is innocent in New Zealand is more or less irrelevent, we agreed that if New Zealand has someone they want in the US we turn them over, if the US has someone New Zealand wants, we turn them over. The basic idea of networks of extradition treaties, interpol (a seperate thing), etc... is to discourage people from committing crimes and then hiding in another country, or to use the borders of one country as an excuse to scam/cheat/commit crimes in another one. Saying that before the US could even get to try they guy, he would basically have to be found guilty in New Zealand, defeats the entire point and why the agreements exist. Things like extradition treaties exist are specifically to act as administrative matters and to bypass domestic laws when someone is wanted abroad.

Right now this is newsworthy because it's a big case, and New Zealand is trying to stick it to the US. In practice this kind of thing happens regularly, and without a hitch. The US, Europe, etc... pass criminals around for trial this way with some regularity, New Zealand is making an issue where there really shouldn't be one.

Now, if this sounds like a mess, your right... it is. It's one of the many reasons I talk about the need for a single world goverment/culture, one set of laws, etc...

Please note that in saying this I'm not making a judgement that I think the guy in question is a criminal, merely that I agree he needs to stand trial.

I also think it's a good thing that the US is extraditing people for trial for online crimes (or the accusations of them) because really I think countries being so far unwilling to do that has contributed to the whole issue becoming a mess given the ease of operating outside of the country your actually aiming your criminal enterprises at. I'd much rather they weren't doing this over something like file sharing, but you have to start somewhere.

 

[ninja51]

Good for Megaupload. Now I don't pirate, and definately don't encourage it, but Megaupload in all of my uses of it, was perfectly legitament. It was a file sharing site. I uploaded a few mods there myself even, and some bigger mods needed a big server like Megaupload to hold. When it wss basicly raided, all other file sharing sites voluntarily shut themselves down (for all intensive purposes) just to avoid following suit.

It was rediculous, next thing you know, some truely fantastic user made content was gone. File sharing and pirateing are not the same thing, Megaupload was a file sharing site, not a pirating site. The process of file sharing does lend itself to pirateing, but as the arguement has been made many times, it is the same situation as VCR's.

The government has not grasped onto the times, and has such a rudamentary understanding of how pirating and file sharing works its rediculous. The cause of that, outside of normal government ignorance, is that they are fed information by lobbyists. It is a vicious cycle, but one that, thankfully, will come back to bite them in this case. The lobbyists caused the government too push to hard too fast, and break its' own laws of due process really.

New Zealand has continued on being the badass country it is and called them on it. The case will be thrown out I believe, and that is truthfully a positive thing for us all. Because like it or not, what the governenment did was kind of deplorable in the context of freedom and a fair legal system. Megaupload is not an evil company, it was a very helpful and useful tool, that was exploited on occassion, like almost all tools are, in the wrong way.

 

[SpAc3man]

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.

Something that seems to be missing in the article is that the NZ authorities have been cooperating with US very closely. The general opinion of the public in NZ is that we should tell the US to fuck off until we sort the extradition out. Nobody is happy about the FBI coming into our country to tell us what to do and unfortunately for them they stuffed up and NZ is in the position of ensuring Dotcom is treated fairly. Dotcom's lawyers were issued a written promise that any evidence seized and compiled by the FBI and NZ Police would not be handed over to the prosecution in the US without them being informed and given copies of everything that would be handed over. They recently found out that the evidence was handed over anyway. None of the crucial evidence will be seen by the media before any trial and it doesn't matter if the US thinks this should be treated as an administrative matter because the decision is with the New Zealand courts where the main concern is fair justice for a person who called our country his home. Not to please the large corporations that seem to be pulling the US Government's strings.

What's more, the guys involved in Megaupload have a LOT of money and are doubtlessly paying off the New Zealand goverment as happens in most of these cases involving rich people (both foreign and abroad).

As it so happens Dotcom has made several donations to NZ politicians. Most notably the two main candidates in the previous Auckland mayoral elections. One of the candidates declared the donation as required by law for larger donations while the other asked for two separate smaller donations so he could declare them as anonymous. He has since been called out on it by Kim Dotcom after the media did some investigating and it is likely he will be sacked from his current government position. Corruption in NZ is minimal and never very well hidden. Some notable examples we have had recently include an MP using his government credit card to pay for adult movies in his hotel room while traveling on business and others using tax money to pay for air fairs while traveling overseas on holiday (as they are entitled to) which is viewed negatively by the public.

EDIT: I would also like to add that copyright infringement and racketeering are NOT covered by the NZ-US extradition treaty.

 

[SnowyGamester]

There's loads of file-sharing sites though

True, but quite a few of the good ones (mediafire, filesonic) have been converted into personal cloud storage or quietly shut down in the aftermath. And those that havn't need you to sign up and sign in to upload (or at least every one I've come across so far has).

 

[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.

All of your points about the case are ones that apply within the US legal system. All the evidence he's entitled to will be presented, the issue right now is for him to enter into the US system, and face trial like anyone else who committed a crime in this country.

As far as the rest goes, I have to say that I disagree with you. For one I think a very strong, and nessicary, statement is being made here by extraditing this guy (or trying to) as it shows the US isn't going to stop just because someone thumbs their nose from IP laws from ouside of the country.

As far as going after service providers, one of the problems with this area of law is that it has few precedents set with it, and that's what putting cases like this on trial is all about. See, right now we (as observers) don't know what that evidence is any more than New Zealand does, all we know is that the goverment thinks it has a direction it can go in. If the guy is right, then by all means he'll win the trial, but we don't know that which is why there needs to be one. New Zealand isn't handing the guy over to be punished, but rather to stand trial. The evidence is being handled like any other case in the US to the best of my knowlege.

However much piracy can use some legal cases; this is not the way to go about it. The US attorney's office literally admitted they threw the book at him in the assumption that some of it would stick. Said impressive legal practice was promptly followed by details such as "jurisdiction" being conveniently overlooked in order to arrest him.

Which, of course, was followed in style by actively trying to deny him legal counsel - as virtually every single lawyer could be objected to as having a client somewhere in that massive heap of files. Not to mention this attempted denial of sharing the evidence. (Not exactly an "he'll get what he needs" there either - not if they could help it.)

If this is how the US normally handles their cases, then you might want to get a minor review in there somewhere.

Not to mention that even though it looks good on paper, convicting him could have rather nasty implications for many other data storage / transfer services. As undoubtedly noted countless times before; if this precedent sticks, then Google can easily be charged with exactly the same offenses, as they don't preview every single Youtube video before it gets uploaded.

Chasing pirates is all very lovely and well, but this particular piece of cowboy justice should get slapped out of court.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

All of your points about the case are ones that apply within the US legal system. All the evidence he's entitled to will be presented, the issue right now is for him to enter into the US system, and face trial like anyone else who committed a crime in this country.

As far as the rest goes, I have to say that I disagree with you. For one I think a very strong, and nessicary, statement is being made here by extraditing this guy (or trying to) as it shows the US isn't going to stop just because someone thumbs their nose from IP laws from ouside of the country.

As far as going after service providers, one of the problems with this area of law is that it has few precedents set with it, and that's what putting cases like this on trial is all about. See, right now we (as observers) don't know what that evidence is any more than New Zealand does, all we know is that the goverment thinks it has a direction it can go in. If the guy is right, then by all means he'll win the trial, but we don't know that which is why there needs to be one. New Zealand isn't handing the guy over to be punished, but rather to stand trial. The evidence is being handled like any other case in the US to the best of my knowlege.

However much piracy can use some legal cases; this is not the way to go about it. The US attorney's office literally admitted they threw the book at him in the assumption that some of it would stick. Said impressive legal practice was promptly followed by details such as "jurisdiction" being conveniently overlooked in order to arrest him.

Which, of course, was followed in style by actively trying to deny him legal counsel - as virtually every single lawyer could be objected to as having a client somewhere in that massive heap of files. Not to mention this attempted denial of sharing the evidence. (Not exactly an "he'll get what he needs" there either - not if they could help it.)

If this is how the US normally handles their cases, then you might want to get a minor review in there somewhere.

Not to mention that even though it looks good on paper, convicting him could have rather nasty implications for many other data storage / transfer services. As undoubtedly noted countless times before; if this precedent sticks, then Google can easily be charged with exactly the same offenses, as they don't preview every single Youtube video before it gets uploaded.

Chasing pirates is all very lovely and well, but this particular piece of cowboy justice should get slapped out of court.

Well, see there is a flip side to this. Part of the reason why people engage in crimes over international borders is specifically to make themselves nearly impossible to prosecute for the reasons your pointing out. I don't see it so much as a matter of the US misbehaving, so much as it doing it's job despite the barriers. Like it or not this is exactly the kind of guy that needs to be gone after, and the precedents established. Throwing the book at someone in most cases, likewise is a pretty standard practice for all legal cases, especially when your dealing with someone trying to use the ambigiouity of their position as a defense. Likewise the nature of the situation Mr. Dotcom puts himself into is what makes legal counsel difficult, not being able to find a lawyer to represent you by your own doing is kind of a ridiculous defense.

To be entirely blunt, I'm hardly pro-pirate. I don't like what the goverment is doing with file sharing systems, but at the same time I think this is getting pretty ridiculous at times. A big part of the problem is that large file sharing sites don't even make the pretensions of trying to police themselves, hackers and such use tags specifically to ensure their warez are recognized as being from them to the regular user. If millions of people can recognize a tag like say AXXO, then the guys running a file sharing site can do the same exact thing. A big part of the problem here isn't whether it's practical for these services to police ALL files, but that they don't even make much of an effort, and yeah, that coming back to bite people is a big deal.

Honestly though, while not pro-pirate, I'll also say that I don't think it's as big a deal as the industries victimize it make it out to be, especially when the pirates themselves aren't making any money off of it (which is a whole differant area of discussion). The thing is that guys like Kim Dotcom have been making millions of dollars off of this stuff, granted he persumably gets his money due to advertising and the like through his sites, BUT at the same time the whole reason why he's such a hot property for advertisers is specifically because of all the warez that bring people to him. He might not be cracking games and music, but he is making money off of people doing it, albiet in an indirect fashion. One of the big defenses in terms of this being that nobody profits off of it, but we ARE seeing people profit off of it indirectly, and Kim is living what amounts to a truely epic lifestyle.