Dotcom raid illegal

[Lynx-lynx]

The US Gov't tried to use New Zealand to do it's dirty work for it, and it back fired.

Dotcom had many aspects to it - I've used Mega upload when downloading legit files.

Blanket assumptions shouldn't be made re copyright breaches.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For law enforcement officials to screw up their procedures is bad, yes (if that's what in fact did happen), but you're surely not comparing it to the crimes of a man who's made millions from brazenly encouraging and facilitating people to infringe copyright, are you? That seems a bizarre comparison to me.

It is a bizarre comparison, because screwing up legal procedures is much, much worse. The legal system has to play by the rules, no matter what, or it becomes a complete sham.

[stonetools]

Reports of the death of the Dotcom case appear to be greatly exaggerated. From the NZ Herald report:

Justice Winkelmann's judgement released a short time ago found the warrants were far too wide in terms of the scope of the search and the amount of items they gave police authority to seize.

"These categories of items were defined in such a way that they would inevitably capture within them both relevant and irrelevant material. The police acted on this authorisation. The warrants could not authorise seizure of irrelevant material, and are therefore invalid.''

The cloning of Dotcom's hard drives by the FBI, who took the copied disks back to the US was also ruled as invalid because Dotcom had never given consent.

The court ordered an independent lawyer to review everything seized in the raid to determine what is relevant to the investigation and what is not.

Relevant material is to be released to US authorities and everything else is be returned to Dotcom "forthwith''.

link
What I get from this is that the FBI gets to keep (and use in its case) RELEVANT material seized under the warrant. IRRELEVANT material is to be returned to the defense, with independent counsel making the call as to what is relevant and irrelevant. A setback for the FBI perhaps, but not a fatal setback.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I heard his idea to pay musicians per download is back on. Hopefully he will do something similar with ebooks too.

I would like to see the MegaBox program make it out of the gate. It sounded like a great way for artists to make money. It'd be great for ebooks, too.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

I would like to see the MegaBox program make it out of the gate. It sounded like a great way for artists to make money. It'd be great for ebooks, too.

Yep, + 1

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Justice? Someone who's made millions out of encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement? Where's the "justice"?

I don't know if a million dollars can equate to a night spent in prison...

If anything the authorities should have simply seized the assets and attempted to distribute them to the creators that .com has infringed upon.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Reports of the death of the Dotcom case appear to be greatly exaggerated. From the NZ Herald report:



link
What I get from this is that the FBI gets to keep (and use in its case) RELEVANT material seized under the warrant. IRRELEVANT material is to be returned to the defense, with independent counsel making the call as to what is relevant and irrelevant. A setback for the FBI perhaps, but not a fatal setback.

As they've stuffed up the warrant it will be interesting to see how much is relevant.

[Lynx-lynx]

I look forward to a future Wikileaks on this whole saga!

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And neither, it appears, will Mr Dotcom, who has "mocked the justice system" infinitely more. And that's a far greater injustice.

No Harry, it isn't.

In fact Harry, it is not even in the same galaxy of injustice.
Now ( it saddens me that some one has to explain this to you) Mr. Dotcom did provide a service that could be abused. He also provided for taking stuff down albeit an arguement could be made that it was by design less than efficient..none the less Mr. Dotcom was never, ever involved with people running around with guns breaking things and seizing people by armed force...outside the law.

Not ever, Harry.
Dotcom didn't do that even once.
To anybody.
Anywhere.

So no, Dotcom never did anything ouside the law that was on the same continent of wrong as what the U.S. government did here.

You can make comparisons to that effect, but you can not make rational comparisons to that effect.

I like you. You make wonderful digital renderings for the library here. You are erudite. But your position on this one is untenable. The "infinitely more" injustice falls completely on the U.S. government here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Phogg

The "infinitely more" injustice falls completely on the U.S. government here.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. A procedural screw-up is bad, but it's probably just human error. It's not in the same league as a professional criminal like Mr Dotcom who's made millions from his crimes over many years.

If you disagree, then let's agree to differ; I doubt we're going to change each other's mind on the matter.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And neither, it appears, will Mr Dotcom, who has "mocked the justice system" infinitely more. And that's a far greater injustice.

They only have themselves to blame for their mistakes. But I suspect it was all deliberate anyway. It certainly had the desired effect of getting rid of Megaupload and having all the similar sites running scared. And anyone thinking of setting up a download service that cuts out the coporations to pay creators per download will certainly think twice after this.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. A procedural screw-up is bad, but it's probably just human error. It's not in the same league as a professional criminal like Mr Dotcom who's made millions from his crimes over many years.

If you disagree, then let's agree to differ; I doubt we're going to change each other's mind on the matter.

Whereas I am sure I indeed won't change your mind in this, I have to admit I admire your faith in humanity. From what I have read about the case, it is clear to me that Dotcom operated willingly in a legal grey zone, probably encouraging people to infringe copyrights. I am pretty sure most people would agree on a lack of good intentions from his side.

The, as you call it 'procedural screw-up', in my perception is anything but human error. The gross errors in an international legal minefield indicate to me that US law enforcement had as main goal to destroy MegaUpload Inc. with as secondary goals maybe a conviction for Dotcom and other executives of MegaUpload. I have very strong doubts about the good intentions from the side of law enforcement, especially the higher echelons.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. A procedural screw-up is bad, but it's probably just human error. It's not in the same league as a professional criminal like Mr Dotcom who's made millions from his crimes over many years.

It wasn't human error. This was discussed before:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The argument is that they filed the wrong paperwork on purpose, because it allowed them to shortcut due process. Basically, the paperwork they tried to use let them seize his assets without first allowing the defendant a hearing. In other words, it gave them the ability to destroy his business without giving him a chance to defend himself.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. A procedural screw-up is bad, but it's probably just human error. It's not in the same league as a professional criminal like Mr Dotcom who's made millions from his crimes over many years.

If you disagree, then let's agree to differ; I doubt we're going to change each other's mind on the matter.

Assuming it was procedural and not, we know we shouldn't but lets do it anyway. The former forgivable but a sad state of affairs if it lets someone get off who has done wrong. The latter, inexcusable and worse than the crimes DotCom has been charged with.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For law enforcement officials to screw up their procedures is bad, yes (if that's what in fact did happen), but you're surely not comparing it to the crimes of a man who's made millions from brazenly encouraging and facilitating people to infringe copyright, are you? That seems a bizarre comparison to me.

Mr. Dotcom has no authority to kick down your door, drag you to jail, confiscate your property, and toss you in prison to rot. Dotcom and his cronies are under no obligation to be paragons. Those who represent and enforce the law are under that obligation (at least as far as the operation of the law is concerned).

The court in New Zealand has ruled that procedure was violated. The US court has yet to rule. We'll see what happens.

I don't see where my government has the authority to prosecute people who aren't in our jurisdiction. No matter what Mr. Dotcom's crimes may have been, he apparently wasn't committing them here.

I've never been to England and I've never done business in England. If the that country's police knocked on my door, I'd tell them to stuff themselves. I don't see why that same attitude shouldn't apply for citizens of other countries as well.