41–50 of 138 posts
This is why the US Government shouldn't have seized the site first, and asked questions later. They should've filed a trial against them, and let them keep hosting the data, and if found guilty, then take it down.
So either the government needs to pay up, store the drives themselves or dismiss these thousands of harddrives from the witness bench.
Also, I cant see how the EFFs claim has any legal merit. Theres no obligation for a site to enable you to access data you sent them.
In my mind, the MPAA is certainly the best choice to pay these costs. They're the ones with the problem, they should be the ones to bear the burden. Especially considering Megaupload offered to take the data and they explicitly forbade it. If the MPAA didn't like the solutions offered, but can't come up with something better, then I think Carpathia should get to do what it wants. Edit: The opinion above has NO legal…
If they have been ordered to hold the data/servers as evidence, then the Government, as the requesting party, is solely responsible for the costs. If and when any party is found guilty at trial, the government can ask that the guilty defendant(s) be held financially responsible for all costs of prosecution, which would include reimbursement of these expenses.
Fucking exactly!! Have fucking MPAA pick up the tab.
EDIT: its going to be amazing (and will take years for sure) to see if this won't bite MPAA in the ass if the judge will rule that yes they do have to pay. Would looove to see that. This should be actually a rule of thumb -- if MPAA believes someone is infringing, court suit is entirely fine, but you guys (MPAA) will pay to keep the light on in the meanwhile.
Sure, a bunch of pissed off people will certainly be upset - but it's not the company's fault - they shouldn't have to bear this burden. I can't see how they could be sued by users for this, they didn't enter into any kind of agreement with the users, only with the customer.
Are there seriously people that used Megaupload as their sole and only place to store their data? What if there was a fire in the server room? Or some MU intern typed rm -rf /?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why this is the case, why can't they exchange the HDDs in the servers, tell the FBI to come with a big van and store the HDDs with the evidence on it themselves in some evidence room?
25 petabytes of hard disc is a considerable cost. Some people have mentioned insurance. Would any policy cover you for a customer being investigated for possibly criminal activity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why this is the case, why can't they exchange the HDDs in the servers, tell the FBI to come with a big van and store the HDDs with the evidence on it themselves in some evidence room?
25 petabytes of hard disc is a considerable cost. Some people have mentioned insurance. Would any policy cover you for a customer being investigated for possibly criminal activity?
The $3.2MM per year is actually sounding a lot more reasonable to keep it up and running.
It sucks, but that's the price of doing business. They chose their customer, and now are (unfortunately) tied to consequences. Same thing happens to building owners who have a crime committed by a tenant, the leased space becomes a crime scene until the police/govt are done with their investigation.
But instead of just losing use of those servers, they have to actively maintain them. It looks like they just want someone to pay for the $9000 per day that it costs to keep the servers running, they aren't looking for money that they lost from not being able to use the servers. To go with your analogy, sure building owners aren't allowed to rent the space back out, but they most certainly not asked to pay for usual…