Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the whoops-our-bad dept.

Piracy 139

thomst writes "Cnet's Greg Sandoval reports that New Zealand police filed for the wrong kind of restraining order--the kind that didn't allow for DotCom to have a court hearing prior to the seizure — and that was a mistake, according to a report in the New Zealand Herald. A court has now ruled that the restraining order that enabled police to seize his assets is 'null and void,' and a review of the mistakes made will soon be conducted by New Zealand's attorney general, according to the Herald. The paper noted that there's no guarantee that DotCom will prevail. His lawyers must prove the absence of good faith when the procedural error was made."

cancel ×

139 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

When will they seize Time Warner's assets? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396249)

Time Warner's gives the city free cable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396327)

Time Warner's gives the city free cable

Re:When will they seize Time Warner's assets? (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397321)

Does the local police force working under the direction and supervision of a foreign govt count as a 'procedural error' as well?

Re:When will they seize Time Warner's assets? (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398243)

There is only one way to find out and that is to force exposure of the corruption of the copyrightists, those that most distributed software to enable copyright infraction in order shut down a public internet and convert it into a mass media controlled internet.

That video mentioned http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka5oLSuiUGs [youtube.com] needs to be pushed as far and wide as possible.

Let's see how the corrupt US courts deal with this problem. Let's chain mail this video as publicly and embarrassingly around the world as possible. I have already spent a chunk of time emailing the link to political parties and labour organisations.

Obviously foreign states can sue you (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398259)

Does the local police force working under the direction and supervision of a foreign govt count as a 'procedural error' as well?

Just in the case that you're actually interested in the response, it's going to disappoint you : no. Imagine if that were true : you'd just have to cross a single jurisdiction line and you'd get away with any crime whatsoever. That doesn't quite work.

We have this thing called international treaties. These days, if you commit a crime, it doesn't really matter if the victim of said crime is in your own country or in another one. If the victim decides to sue, or a foreign state decides to sue (as in this case), they can do so (although relatively high minimum damage levels are enforced : you can't sue a foreignor for less than about $2000). With a big exception in the EU, the proceedings are executed according to local law (in civial matters), and there local laws apply (in the EU foreign treaties take precedence of local laws, even constitutions, so it's much worse there). Foreign states are special in that they can start both civil and criminal proceedings. You do need to have violated a local law : you can't sue a muslim for beating his wife nearly to death if he manages to get into Morocco was a pretty high-profile case recently (and maybe this law will change, something to do with a number of suicides in that country).

What is going on here is that the police has seized his property because they believe he has committed a criminal offence and that someone (e.g. Time Warner) will seek damages, and has a reasonable chance to get them. They believe there is a big chance that given the chance, Kim Dotcom will cut and run (apparently he's done that before in Germany), and the judge agreed with that.

One of the things any lawyer should tell you : if you violate a legal principle that applies both in your country and in a foreign country, but only has foreign "victims", you won't be protected by jurisdiction limits. So the simple thing is : in America, insult whatever political figure or religion or ideology you like, and don't worry about morons like North Korea or Saudi Arabia suing you. Don't violate American law, even if you're "only hurting" foreigners.

If you want to change copyright, by all means go ahead. However if you try to do this through the court, you will fail, and you best be prepared to be bankrupt for the rest of your life. Any real action will be played out in congress. Democracy does not mean you do what you want, rather that the majority of the country, represented by freely chosen congresscritters, has to agree you're allowed to do it. If you can't convince enough of your fellow Americans (ie. 150 million), it's not going to happen.

I'm divided (1, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396255)

Kim Dotcom is an absolute fucking tool, and I have ZERO respect for him. That said, if the authorities screwed up, they screwed up. Return his stuff.

Re:I'm divided (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396369)

So if he was innocent but they had the correct paperwork, everything would be ok with you?

Re:I'm divided (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396599)

Not being a tool is not the same as being innocent.

Re:I'm divided (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396917)

Well one would hope that the paperwork is there to prevent searches and seizures against innocent people.

Re:I'm divided (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397049)

that would be one of many reasons. Bureaucracy sometimes exists to serve the bureaucracy, sometimes some broader strategic interest etc. Should the police be looking to seize assets as the property of an individual who is accused of, seizing the assets of the principle owner of a corporation accused of, seizing the assets of the corporation, being used for the principle owner etc. etc. etc.

I'm not a lawyer, australian or otherwise, but the way I vaguely understand other commonwealth law is that Megaupload is a legally existing corporation (even if all of its activities are accused of being illegal), and everything in question (the hosting of copyrighted works) was done in the capacity of the corporation. That's different than kim dotcom hosting the files on his own, and means that even though he could be arrested and have his assets seized as part of his role in the corporation, they are supposed to go after the corporation, and as part of going after a corporation. I'm not sure in the end it makes much practical difference, but the paperwork is different (and that might determine how it is counted for statistics purposes and funding purposes).

Re:I'm divided (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397057)

Er, new zealander or otherwise. My mistake.

Re:I'm divided (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398397)

So if he was innocent but they had the correct paperwork, everything would be ok with you?

He's not innocent, dumbass. But he shouldn't be punished for providing a service that benefits copyright theft.

Slashdot = stagnant turd where everything is black and white, hyperbole, and straw men and no one can think for themselves.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

PieceOfShitAndroid (2538056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396373)

Whether or not he is not a tool is irrelevant. His business has already been destroyed. What is important the fact that there is no rule of law. Governments have too much power. This needs to change.

Re:I'm divided (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396399)

How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook. It so happens that this time, he was running a file sharing site. But between his credit card thefts, his stock scams and his selling of cracked games to pirate factories, the guy will always find some new crime to make a fortune off of. And I do mean a fortune.

I for one, am praying that Kimble is jailed for good, and stops giving a bad name to REAL defenders of IP rights and file sharers.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396499)

How can you possible be defending Kimble?

I'd defend anyone from what I believe is abuse. Mentioning his name will not change that for me. That was just a general statement.

Re:I'm divided (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396643)

"I'd defend anyone from what I believe is abuse"

Anonymously. On an internet forum.

What's it like to be the bravest man on earth?

Re:I'm divided (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396687)

You assume that I wouldn't do it in real life. Why? If I'm anonymous, then surely you know nothing about me?

But what does it matter where I defend someone? The point that I made still stands.

Re:I'm divided (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396721)

"I'd defend anyone from what I believe is abuse"

Anonymously. On an internet forum.

What's it like to be the bravest man on earth?

Says the anonymous coward who tries to character assassinate an allegedly anonymous person......

Re:I'm divided (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396843)

Oh shut up, way to be derogatory without having a clue who you're talking to or knowing anything citation worthy.

Re:I'm divided (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397053)

What's it like to be a lame fucking cowardly asshole?

Re:I'm divided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397469)

You tell me.

Re:I'm divided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396529)

I can't help but to love Kim Dotcom. He's a crook and a douchebag, 100%. We all know he's a criminal, he knows it, the police know it, half his existence is trying to promote a silly 'gangster' image for himself.

I just love how they want to stop MILLIONS of people from stealing files and they can't even get the one guy with the "MAFIA" license plate on his Benz without bungling it up.

Re:I'm divided (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397177)

How many rappers do the same thing to establish an 'image' or 'brand' or whatever you want to call it for themselves though.

Just because you buy a car, and call it the 'crack dispenser' doesn't actually mean you're using it to sell crack, or name your band 'ho wreckers' or (the not fictional) "Barenaked Ladies" doesn't mean you actually are or have any of the above. That's kind of the problem. Kim Dotcom was building a brand up around himself and his business, you can argue (probably correctly) that was to establish an illegal clientèle, but that doesn't necessarily mean what he was doing was illegal. That goes to steve jobs driving around without a licence plate. Being a dick is part of (their) creating brand recognition, and getting free publicity.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396579)

"Easy cases make bad law. [google.com] "

They go after Kim Dotcom because they think they can make an unsympathetic defendant of him. That's part of why all the trumped up bullshit in the complaint vs. "Megaupload" as well (constant words like "mega conspiracy", "child porn", and so on created to scare the crap out of the grand jury).

If you don't defend him, though, then that sets a precedent and other people get fucked over by the bad precedent. Why do you think the MafIAA run away from court every time they look like they are about to lose a case? It's because settling or "dropping" the case doesn't create precedent, but losing in court would.

Re:I'm divided (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397609)

I wonder if any of the mafiaa's defendents will ever get sick enough of the debacle to deny the dismissal and force the case through to the end.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396609)

When they take YOUR rights away, they start by taking them away from someone you find distasteful. Often it is the mistake of the naive to think that Rights only apply to the good and just citizen. What they do not realize is that, if you can make a distinction regarding who deserves certain Rights and who does not, it is only a matter of time before the government finds a way to make that very distinction against you. Rights are not rights unless they apply to everyone, equally.

Re:I'm divided (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397259)

Exactly. You know the post the other day regarding the American getting charged with child pornography for having manga on his PC? This one:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/15/2034252/canadian-charges-against-us-manga-reader-dropped

That happened because the government created the precedent by prosecuting John Sharpe for his drawings. Since Sharpe also had pictures of child pornography, and indeed was likely a child toucher, it was an easy win because the public vilified him for BOTH things (drawings/books and the pictures) and therefore decided that throwing away their rights was worth it to put him in prison rather than realizing there's two separate cases there (the thought expression vs. the pictures).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpe

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396641)

Mr. Dotcom is hardly a hero but any money he makes is unlikely to finance the corruption in governments and trade treaties we see. The money he makes isn't going to turn the world into a police state. It may go towards scamming, but scammers do not usually have storm troopers crashing into the homes of private citizens.

Any and all ways that deprive the intellectual monopoly corps of revenue are good. Even if it means creeps like Dotcom get money.

Re:I'm divided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396853)

Please mod this guy up. Also, I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:I'm divided (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397853)

Who else wishes that 1/10th of the effort spenton getting Kim Dotcom Was spent on investigating at LEAST 1 corporate banker or organization behind the recent bank debacle in the states. These "folk" caused far, far, far more damage than Dotcom did.

It just goes to show that no matter how corrupt an entity is, if the entity has congress backing, it can get away with just about anything.

DISGRACEFUL SYSTEM.

AC

Re:I'm divided (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398343)

Mr. Dotcom is hardly a hero but any money he makes is unlikely to finance the corruption in governments and trade treaties we see. The money he makes isn't going to turn the world into a police state. It may go towards scamming, but scammers do not usually have storm troopers crashing into the homes of private citizens.

Any and all ways that deprive the intellectual monopoly corps of revenue are good. Even if it means creeps like Dotcom get money.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think his case has encouraged governments to cooperate with the the recording industry on bad law and setting bad precedends. If the governements see the recording industry and their armies of lawyers as good guys in contrast to Dotcom and (they presume) many others like him, it eases their minds about whether they're doing the right thing. And he tarnishes the images of other file sharers who may be operating within the law.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396773)

It's a very small step between bending the law to go after people we know are doing something illegal to bending the law to go after people the police or people in power don't like. That's the point of the rule of law: sometimes it protects asshats, but that's better than it not protecting anyone.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396925)

"How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook."

You mean like most modern businesses? At this point there is little difference between kimble and what is the status quo for the corporate sector. You're blind otherwise.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396935)

If we want to live in a society which respects the rule of law, then the law also protects assholes, and taking that protection away from them takes it away from everybody.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397029)

Insisting on due process is defending ALL of us. If he's as bad as you say (and that's likely), then he can be nailed to the wall without endangering the rights of everyone by following due process to the letter.

I would have to say this was a very serious violation. Everyone should have known what due process was here, but somehow, nobody seems to have noticed that they were doing the wrong thing based on the wrong paperwork being filed? I'm supposed to believe that? The judge should be especially ashamed for being so quick with the rubber stamp that he didn't notice.

Re: jailed for good? (4, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397061)

My feeling is this... If Kim was guilty of stealing credit cards, stock scams or selling cracked games to pirate factories, he should be arrested and tried on those counts.
Instead, it looks like they decided it was far more lucrative to take down his MegaUpload site, which is relatively legitimate by comparison to ANY of those other things.

Justice shouldn't be opportunistic, waiting for the "bad guy" to build up something "really worth seizing".

Re:I'm divided (3, Insightful)

pscottdv (676889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397071)

How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook.

Exactly, only honest people have the right to expect due process and the rule of law.

People who share copyrighted works shouldn't be protected by the rule of law!

Re:I'm divided (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397231)

Because while he may have been doing something of an illicit nature, the people bringing him down were no saints.

Re:I'm divided (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397537)

Two wrongs make everything even more F'd up.

And no, this isn't some function of math (- or i) so that you can change a negative into a positive with another negative, even though the results can multiply when you try.

Oh goodie (3, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397749)

There is a reason the people for Freedom of speech rallied behind smut peddler and general amoral person, Larry Flint. If you don't defend the objectionable when they come for them, nobody will object when they come for you. It doesn't work in simple movie heroics but the people at the frontlines of the battle between good and right often ain't all that nice. Many a freedom fighter is just one step away from being a criminal, even in the eyes of their own side. The non-silly part of Dad's army was hard line enemies of the state, who were trained by the state since it was reasoned they hated the nazi's even more then British government and could be counted upon to kill those of the British government who would colaborate with an occupying german force.

Keep waiting for a nice guy to rally behind and you might find that the battle has been lost before you ever got started.

Mind you, I got the strong suspicion that since you are an AC, you might well not mind all that much. 10 to 1 that you think DRM and Trusted Computing are all worth it, for your cause.

Re:I'm divided (2)

ciascu (1345429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398073)

I think there's a good point here about the impact of this kind of process on a business, whether Kim Dotcom's or anybody else's and regardless of the outcome.

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. In a world where decisions are made on the basis of an opportune fortune cookie that fell out of a bag on the shelf where I spotted my subscription copy of "Advertiser's Guide to Large File Hosting Monthly", law enforcement storming an executive's private residence with a cornucopia of guns and officers has an impact. Given the vast sums of money that change hands over ephemeral and esoteric patents on a component of a specific product, this is another order of magnitude in competitive disadvantage.

My point isn't that this specific case is right or wrong, but that we trust government, not the judiciary, to ensure this catastrophe only happens to the bad guys, which may be necessary but is still incompatible with "innocent until proven guilty". If there's a mistake, commensurate restitution is simply infeasible. Which is one reason many court cases involve name suppression, but then that opens another can of worms.

Re:I'm divided (5, Insightful)

jdev (227251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396489)

Right, return his stuff after the damage is already done. Megauploads is gone. Nothing they can do now can repair their business.

And to be honest, I think that was the point of this whole exercise. I don't think our government cared about making any kind of legal precedent here. They mostly just wanted to show that they had the ability to take any of these guys down and went after a high profile business to do it.

Re:I'm divided (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396573)

Megaupload was a front. It was the equivalent of a butcher shop hiding a mafia hide-out in the back.

Re:I'm divided (3, Interesting)

KZigurs (638781) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396753)

That's a fairly big statement to make without any supporting evidence. Care to share?

Re:I'm divided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397311)

I heard it on the internet.

Re:I'm divided (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396763)

The same thing happened to ShareReactor [wikipedia.org] . It was shut down on "suspicion of breach of copyright and trademark laws". The investigation took several years. In the end there was no charges but the site was effectively destroyed.

Re:I'm divided (4, Insightful)

Fallingwater (1465567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397175)

Right, return his stuff after the damage is already done. Megauploads is gone. Nothing they can do now can repair their business.

Megaupload was/is the most famous sharing site, and all this buzz around it after the arrest/shutdown only made it more widely known. If Dotcom can bend the laws enough to restart it without getting thrown in jail again, he'll be making thrice as much money from Megaupload as he was before.

Re:I'm divided (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397449)

Mod parent up. That's actually a good point, and for all we know, he may still have a copy of the files laying around which would drive traffic there /instantly/.

Re:I'm divided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398161)

This is the only thing I've heard about Megaupload lately. I don't think this has sufficient media coverage to offset the damages.

Re:I'm divided (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396585)

"tool" does not mean what you think it means.

Re:I'm divided (1)

Johnny O (22313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397015)

"Spanner"? ;-)

Re:I'm divided (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397159)

Left-handed auger?

Re:I'm divided (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397547)

bacon stretcher?

He chose a wrong name (5, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396319)

If he named himself Kim Dotnz the Americans wouldn't have any jurisdiction over him.

Re:He chose a wrong name (2, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396429)

If he named himself Kim Dotnz the Americans wouldn't have any jurisdiction over him.

Technically, being called Kim Dotcom doesn't in itself give the Americans any jurisdiction over him, just his canonical name. In fact, you can still refer to him as "Mr 88.191.78.39".

Anyway, as .nz domains all appear to be split into second level categories, he'd have to be "Kim Dotcodotnz" or "Kim Dotgeekdotnz" (that second one showing that the Americans aren't the only one coming up with stupid domain categories).

Re:He chose a wrong name (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396497)

...you can still refer to him as "Mr 88.191.78.39"...

Doesn't quite roll off the tongue as eloquently as "double-oh-seven"...

Re:He chose a wrong name (1)

eldorel (828471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396751)

Always wanted to see a different agent than Mr. Bond.

Where's Agent 4-0-4?

Re:He chose a wrong name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396775)

lol, it was a joke...

Re:He chose a wrong name (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396845)

lol, it was a joke...

Er, yeah, I *had* spotted that! You don't really think I was being serious when I suggested the Yanks could revoke his name and we'd have to refer to him by IP number instead? ;-)

that's what you get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396321)

That's what you get when you bend over and take it from america, screwed.

probably won't help (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396333)

it's essentially impossible to prove "bad faith" on something like this without a "smoking gun" like an email mentioning how they're just going to take a shortcut or something.

IMHO, the whole concept of "it's ok to do something illegal as long as you had good intentions" is not something that should work for the law, ever. It rarely helps the citizen. ("good samaritan" laws being the only common exception)

The whole point of having legal requirements is to force them to make sure they have their ducks in a row before exercising their powers. Once you say "well it's OK if you violate someone's rights, as long as it was an honest mistake", it opens a huge barn door to abuse. Laws should always be slanted in favor of the accused, to lower the incidence of abuse and mistaken application.

Re:probably won't help (5, Insightful)

Flavio (12072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396411)

Once you say "well it's OK if you violate someone's rights, as long as it was an honest mistake", it opens a huge barn door to abuse.

And this is why politicians consistently play dumb and ignorant. People can be incarcerated for being corrupt, but not for being unintelligent.

Re:probably won't help (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396791)

Being too stupid or ignorant to do your job properly ought to count as negligence, possibly wilful negligence if you had the opportunity to educate yourself but chose not to.

Re:probably won't help (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396457)

Hardly.

it's essentially impossible to prove "bad faith" on something like this without a "smoking gun" like an email mentioning how they're just going to take a shortcut or something.

The entire purpose of all of the "paperwork" and everything else was to engage in classic police state tactics - namely, "sieze now, don't explain till later" bullshit.

There was absolutely no reason to not pursue normal court procedures, in which Dotcom would have been able to have legal representation every step of the way, save that the US government wanted him put under lock and key quickly, quietly, and without the right to self-defence to which he was legally entitled under both NZ and US law. This has been proven in the public documentation of how the raid was conducted, how the US authorities were "overseeing" the raid, and how the various siezure orders were given along with the US government stepping in to try to prevent him from being granted bail.

This also extends to how MegaUpload was shut down without warning and how many people lost their own legitimately uploaded documents stored on the service. The US government doesn't give a crap about things like "laws", especially those thuggish asswipes from the FBI.

The whole pattern is in bad faith, period.

Re:probably won't help (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396523)

We both know you're right.

The challenge is having the NZ courts rule there was bad faith when the US is clearly manipulating the entire process.

Re:probably won't help (2)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396665)

"The challenge is having the NZ courts rule there was bad faith when the US is clearly manipulating the entire process."

Not really. As much as slashdotters want to believe there is a shadowy U.S. cabal dictating policy to every other country, it's just not true.

Re:probably won't help (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396705)

"The challenge is having the NZ courts rule there was bad faith when the US is clearly manipulating the entire process."

Not really. As much as slashdotters want to believe there is a shadowy U.S. cabal dictating policy to every other country, it's just not true.

That's right. Vampires don't cast shadows.

Re:probably won't help (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396997)

I'm afraid the word of "nomadic" from Slashdot isn't enough to counter my recent observations.

Re:probably won't help (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397669)

Direct observations? Or the spin you put on outraged internet blog posts?

Re:probably won't help (3, Informative)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398539)

And yet, we see examples of US attempting to exert a huge influence on other countries all the time and pressuring in whatever way they can to do so.

Be it copyright laws, drug enforcement laws, support for their wars or whatever else it is in their interest the following day.

It's not a conspiracy, just foreign policy from the leading military and technological super power of the world.

Re:probably won't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396469)

But then we wouldn't make as much money from fines and court costs. Also we can't have cops being proven wrong, think of their self esteem it's low enough just trying to live with their hypocritical life.

Re:probably won't help (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39397363)

It is entirely possible and it practically proves itself. The judge is implicitly signing that he has read and understood the warrant when he signs it. Clearly he didn't. He had a couple months to notice the news and realize that the necessary hearing never happened. He never came forward. The police knew what the right procedure was but clearly didn't care (they HAD to notice).

The problem is that proving "bad faith" in the sense that the courts will lift a finger to actually uphold justice cannot be done. Even the smoking gun, bloody shirt, gory dagger with fingerprints on it, AND video of the murder won't be enough to meet that "threshold of proof".

Re:probably won't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397657)

The thing is at some point, if you get enough laws on the books, *everyone* breaks the law. Whom the local authorities choose to prosecute is largely a quasi reversion to the older system where those in power could do damn near whatever they wanted, and harass those that went against them without reprecussion or recourse by the victim.

So... (3)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396339)

... they refile the 'proper' warrant, get a judge to sign off on it, and take his stuff again. So the cops screwed up. This is news?

Yes, actually (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396415)

The principle appears to be that they cannot seize assets without him having his day in court. From Guantanamo Bay to the English High Courts, the principle of trying to shut people up without having the put up with their legal representation is getting rather too common.

Years ago Hilaire Belloc made a rather good joke about many apparently worthy causes actually being the work of the "Society for the prevention of annoyances to the rich". This seems to be what is going on nowadays - the Internet is allowing (relatively) poor people to cause annoyance to the rich and they are trying to stop it. But, sadly for them, it is simply not true that there are no honest lawyers.

Re:Yes, actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396727)

But, sadly for them, it is simply not true that there are no honest lawyers.

I'm sure we all know there's an honest lawyer out there somewhere, it's just that you'd be better off hunting for the Higgs Boson.

Re:So... (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398369)

According to the second link they already did this, so he never did get his stuff back.

Dammit! (4, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396345)

Why do bad things happen to police states?

Re:Dammit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396473)

I think the accused having to prove it was intentional when the police overstepped their bounds will let the police state have a pretty good day, thankyouverymuch.

Pee & Poo On You? Ever done it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396355)

Ever just "let go" on purpose?

Just lay there and urinate on yourself while totally relaxed, or dump in your pants and roll around and maybe let both happen and just feel the warmth of it all and enjoy being a dirty birdy?

Re:Pee & Poo On You? Ever done it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396377)

You can find all kinds of comments in a Slashdot thread - from First Piss to Last Poop

Re:Pee & Poo On You? Ever done it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396383)

Yep. Did it last night

Gandalf's colonoscopy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396397)

"New Zealand"

That's the place where all of the GAY hobbits live, isn't it? You think they were extras... suuuuuureeee but I tell you didn't Gandalf look quite pleased when he cradled himself against his staff like he's had it up his hiney one too many times?

DCMA applies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396449)

I don't understand why they don't have complete safe harbor under DCMA? I would think they would.. did they ignore take downs or I guess perhaps their system is distributed if they aren't hosting anything then they can't take it down. In any case, linking to a file should never the the same as file distribution. :(

Re:DCMA applies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396531)

Why would the DCMA apply? Is New Zealand part of the US now.

Re:DCMA applies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396635)

Why would the DCMA apply? Is New Zealand part of the US now.

Isn't that what caused this in the first place?

Re:DCMA applies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39397307)

It is going to be a penal colony for the Federation in the future so he is in the right place.

Re:DCMA applies? (1)

KZigurs (638781) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396785)

Because DCMA is a joke, really. If you follow the law you WILL be found guilty regardless. The only way to be compliant with DCMA is to cut in the **AA in the deal as well (as youtube have done).

Re:DCMA applies? (3, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396807)

This was gone over quite a bit in the original posts. They do host files. They would save space by hashing files and sending multiple links created by multiple users to the same single file on their servers. Then, when a DMCA request was issued, they'd remove the single users' link that they had gotten the request for, and not the file itself.

Bad Faith (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396455)

Sovereign governments of the world kowtowing to the United States is on it's own an act of bad faith. Terrorism takes many forms.

Upcoming consequences (3, Interesting)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396477)

As an American, I'm glad to see foreign courts aren't completely acquiescing to the same "moral imperatives" our politicians and intellectual property owners demand we submit to.

As an epileptic, I'm dreading all the "clever" headline puns describing Kim Dotcom's "seizure disorder".

As a geek, I can't wait to debate whether the it should have instead been ruled NIL, as well as NULL and VOID.

Re:Upcoming consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396545)

I agree - time to invade New Zealand!

Re:Upcoming consequences (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398205)

That last sentence I can't tell if you're also going for some kind of NZ accent double whammy too,... :)

SHELDON COOPER WANTS PENNYS POOPER (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396555)

penny
penny
penny

Just kill him and take his assets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396575)

When you are the government, why the hell not?

Hey new zealand (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396587)

Your american masters don't take kindly to you screwing up such simple henchman work.

Or maybe we find the next terror cell hiding in your country and send in the troops.
Or worse. Maybe you're the next iran and we force the world to cut you off from the worlds banking system.

Don't let it happen again. Remember who your masters are. You are bought and paid for. Don't forget it either.

-Hollywood

null and void? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39396627)

How can it be "null and void"? I though void was a type, and null its only instance. How can anything be both?

New Zealand to Kim Dotcom (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39396651)

"We accidentally your rights"

(and anyone who believes it was an "accident" isn't paranoid enough)

Re:New Zealand to Kim Dotcom (2)

truedfx (802492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398137)

I think you out a verb.

Wisdom follows, pay attention! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398567)

> Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void"

I can also rule many things null and void, including the Moon Landings. These rulings of mine have exactly the same relevance as the NZ ruling: exactly zero. That is because NZ has the same amount of jet warplanes as I have: exactly zero. Uncle Sam has like 4000 of those, if I remember correctly and nzers are free to pelt them away by throwing stones. To summarize simply: the stronger dog gets to have sex and Kim Whoever will be the underdog / unterman this time. That's because USA said so, more precisely the wise people who govern USA from Manhattan and Hollywood.

You see, Kim choose the wrong country. NZ can brag about judical independence as much as they want, lest USA sell them, the whole island to China and they can't do a damn about it, because they do not have any jetfighters to defend themselves. Maybe if NZ has cared a little to replace their ancient A-4 Skyhawk fleet with F-16s, as planned, rather than scrapping them for even more social welfare... I have no sympathy for NZ, they are sissies, who 101% cling on to the USA for defence, yet try to defraud Hollywood at the same time... That can't be both ways, either you are faitful to the USA whole-heartedly or Manhattan will sell you to the chinese for good.

Compare that to AU, how many jet warplanes they have and how faithful they are to the USA. Never fail to buy the movie ticket to support the USA economy which sends them those F-18G Super Hornet Growlers versus China.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>