Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#21

Post by trotsky »

wyck wrote: post #11

I know this might sound like a conspiracy theory, but why did kim dotcom host servers in the U.S., clearly he knew about the issues that would present, so maybe he wanted to test the system legally and get a bit of spotlight for himself, the scapegoat turned avenger?

So you're saying that a german national and convicted white collar criminal may have intentionally had his hundred million dollar plus company shuttered and himself and his employees held without bail so that he could force a legal showdown with the US government over whether or not he was adequately exploiting loopholes in the DMCA?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#22

Post by scott_s »

nikcub wrote: post #19
wyck wrote: post #11

I know this might sound like a conspiracy theory, but why did kim dotcom host servers in the U.S., clearly he knew about the issues that would present, so maybe he wanted to test the system legally and get a bit of spotlight for himself, the scapegoat turned avenger?

MegaUpload ran a net profit margin of around 40%. Hosting anywhere else probably would have wiped a lot of that out. Their main competitive advantage was download speeds in the USA - if you read online comments there was constant bitching about the speeds of other sites vs Megaupload. But forget the download servers being hosted in Virginia - what is much much worse is that they hosted their email servers at the same…

That's a rational, measured assessment. You bring up an excellent point at the end: if all of their evidence is from the emails, how did they get the warrant to obtain the emails?

I submitted it, but it looks like you already did so last week, and it didn't get much attention. I hope more people can see it from this thread.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#23

Post by victork2 »

scott_s wrote: post #17
victork2 wrote: post #2

Even if I don't trust the justice system in the US I really hope that the FBI will fail their investigation and will have wasted a ton on money on this. Even better that they are found convicted of wrongfully use of power or something approaching that. (I never said that Megaupload is innocent though, but I like well followed procedures, they are the guardians of our liberties)

The sentiment that due process was not followed has come up multiple times. Is that what you mean by "well followed procedures"? If so, how did they violate due process? I am unaware of any way that they did. (Note that I am using "due process" to mean "due process as dictated by law" not "what I think is fair" or "the way I think things should be.") This article is really about the merits of the case, which is separ…

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous.

But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way these copyright infringement cases are conducted. I am not american and I would hate to see the FBI take away my startup business on the ground that I am violating copyrights because of my users.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#24

Post by nkassis »

franklindholm wrote: post #10

What kind of DMCA system did Megaupload provide? And what kind of DMCA system is required by law?

Well if you read the article that doesn't matter in this case since it's a criminal case not civil (in which it could be argued that the system in place was inadequate). The article claims that what needs to be shown is intent on violating the DMCA requirements which I'm not sure the FBI has that strong of a case about. They had a system in place and responded to request showing that they were at the very least doing the bare minimum to comply and thus weren't (in my opinion, with what I know), blatantly trying to violate the DMCA.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#25

Post by inf0000 »

maxerickson wrote: post #18
sycren wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but perhaps Stanford Law is a better primary source for this topic?

She is general council for a company that would really like a 'hey we tried' interpretation of the DMCA [1] and only a 'Non Resident Fellow', so I'm not sure I would read the posting as having the full editorial weight of Stanford Law. [1] http://www.vibe.com/content/worldstarhiphop-exposed-truth-be...

Jennifer Granick used to be the Director of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. She still teaches at Stanford Law regularly, and she was previously Civil Liberties director at EFF and counsel at a boutique Internet law firm. I don't know what you mean by "editorial weight" here, but you certainly shouldn't discount anything the author says on account of where she works or her current affiliation with the Center for Internet and Society.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#26

Post by narag »

wyck wrote: post #11

I know this might sound like a conspiracy theory, but why did kim dotcom host servers in the U.S., clearly he knew about the issues that would present, so maybe he wanted to test the system legally and get a bit of spotlight for himself, the scapegoat turned avenger?

Last week I read somewhere that Megaupload ended owning the servers after a legal dispute ended with the bankrupcy of an american company called Alpha Red. That meant it started to be reachable by USA, as evidenced by a civil demand a year ago by https://www.perfect-10.tv/

http://www.hispalinux.es/sites/hispalinux/files/1-main.pdf

http://www.hispalinux.es/sites/hispalinux/files/order%20perf...

No sources for the rest, maybe someone knows something more.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#27

Post by adgar »

victork2 wrote: post #23
scott_s wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentiment that due process was not followed has come up multiple times. Is that what you mean by "well followed procedures"? If so, how did they violate due process? I am unaware of any way that they did. (Note that I am using "due process" to mean "due process as dictated by law" not "what I think is fair" or "the way I think things should be.") This article is really about the merits of the case, which is separ…

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way t…

So you're saying that the FBI should be allowed to arrest a business's operators and seize equipment that they believe are violating the law... but leave the business (which they believe is illegal) to keep running somehow?

The FBI will attempt to prove that MegaUpload was an illegal business. Why should they just let it keep running if that is the case?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#28

Post by plorkyeran »

adgar wrote: post #27
victork2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way t…

So you're saying that the FBI should be allowed to arrest a business's operators and seize equipment that they believe are violating the law... but leave the business (which they believe is illegal) to keep running somehow? The FBI will attempt to prove that MegaUpload was an illegal business. Why should they just let it keep running if that is the case?

Why should the FBI be able to shut down a company without proving that the company is illegal first?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#29

Post by dmbass »

victork2 wrote: post #23
scott_s wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentiment that due process was not followed has come up multiple times. Is that what you mean by "well followed procedures"? If so, how did they violate due process? I am unaware of any way that they did. (Note that I am using "due process" to mean "due process as dictated by law" not "what I think is fair" or "the way I think things should be.") This article is really about the merits of the case, which is separ…

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way t…

IANAL, but isn't this situation equivalent to a drug ring bust?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#30

Post by maxerickson »

inf0000 wrote: post #25
maxerickson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She is general council for a company that would really like a 'hey we tried' interpretation of the DMCA [1] and only a 'Non Resident Fellow', so I'm not sure I would read the posting as having the full editorial weight of Stanford Law. [1] http://www.vibe.com/content/worldstarhiphop-exposed-truth-be...

Jennifer Granick used to be the Director of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. She still teaches at Stanford Law regularly, and she was previously Civil Liberties director at EFF and counsel at a boutique Internet law firm. I don't know what you mean by "editorial weight" here, but you certainly shouldn't discount anything the author says on account of where she works or her current affiliation with the Cent…

What I meant was that Jennifer Granick posting an article to a blog hosted on a Stanford server is different than Standford Law posting an article.
Post reply on HN