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!

US DOJ Claims It Did Not Entrap Megaupload

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the when-all-you-have-is-a-sledgehammer dept.

The Courts 246

angry tapir writes "The U.S. Department of Justice did not mislead a court and attempt to entrap file storage site Megaupload on copyright infringement charges, the agency said in a new filing in the case. Megaupload's charges that the DOJ conspired to entrap the site on criminal copyright charges are 'baseless,' an official with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia wrote in a court document filed last week. Earlier this month, Megaupload filed court documents saying that in 2010 the DOJ asked the site, through its hosting vendor, to keep infringing files as part of a DOJ investigation, then later charged Megaupload with copyright infringement."

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

Bill Clinton (5, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 2 years ago | (#42587605)

And I didn't have sexual relations with that woman!

Re:Bill Clinton (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587945)

Comparing a case of cheating with what the DOJ did, is like comparing a case of matrimonial beatings to Hitler himself.
Bit over the top, don't you think?

Re:Bill Clinton (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588475)

Godwin, really?

GP was just providing an example of a another lie that was just as unbelievable in both its veracity and its outrageousness.

Let's see a show of hands of how many actually believe that the MPAA/RIAA, um, I mean USA government acted legally, legitimately and in good faith?

Huh? (0, Troll)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 2 years ago | (#42587617)

So their argument is basically "It was entrapment because you didn't let us delete the infringing files before the trial"?

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42587643)

Nope. Their argument is that they couldn't lawfully delete evidence once the DOJ made them aware that their servers were under investigation.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

BitterOak (537666) | about 2 years ago | (#42587805)

Nope. Their argument is that they couldn't lawfully delete evidence once the DOJ made them aware that their servers were under investigation.

Perhaps, but couldn't they have stopped sharing the files or making them available while at the same time not deleting them?

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587983)

Maybe. It depends on how clear the DOJ was. The DOJ asks companies to continue hosting forums for instance related to very bad stuff all the time. They aren't just continue to preserve the data. They are asking the companies to keep the forums up so that there investigation can continue unhampered by what otherwise the law requires them to take down.

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

BitterOak (537666) | about 2 years ago | (#42588259)

Maybe. It depends on how clear the DOJ was. The DOJ asks companies to continue hosting forums for instance related to very bad stuff all the time. They aren't just continue to preserve the data. They are asking the companies to keep the forums up so that there investigation can continue unhampered by what otherwise the law requires them to take down.

If that's the case, and the DOJ asked Megaupload to break the law by continuing to share copyrighted materials after a DMCA notice was given, then Megaupload should have demanded the DOJ put their request in writing, and if the DOJ refused, they should have complied with the law and stopped sharing the files. If the DOJ put their request in writing, then Megaupload would be protected now.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588399)

huh?

The original DOJ request to preserve data is documented.

Re:Huh? (1)

BitterOak (537666) | about 2 years ago | (#42588749)

huh?

The original DOJ request to preserve data is documented.

But did that documented request include continuing to share and/or make the files available?

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587985)

They actually did that.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588095)

Since the government claimed in the search warrant that "Premature disclosure of the search would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation...and may lead to the destruction of evidence", then I'm going to have to say no, they couldn't. Deleting the files may have made the defendants (NinjaVideo) question the reason for the deletion and tipped them off about the investigation - allowing them time to delete associated evidence, warn others, and flee the country.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 2 years ago | (#42588315)

no, because the DOJ specifically asked them not to alert the users who uploaded the files.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588433)

No. They weren't allowed to tip off their userbase either.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

Dr_Marvin_Monroe (550052) | about 2 years ago | (#42588653)

Weren't they also directed NOT to let the infringers know that they were under investigation? ...And, wouldn't deleting the files (or making them inaccessible to the true infringers) do EXACTLY that?

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#42588305)

"Their servers were under investigation" is only kind of true. The DOJ was reportedly investigating parties other than Megaupload. Their normal procedure was to remove offending files so they could remain compliant under the DMCA. This investigation didn't have anything on Megaupload as they kept close to but never crossing that fine line. And of course, when they were told they could no longer remove the infringing material, they did as they were told in order to assist in the investigation.

I guess it is important to note that the DOJ either didn't know what its left hand was doing (unlikely) or this in indeed entrapment. And just because they said it's not does not make it so. Recently, we have all be seeing more stories of how police and others are not just planting evidence, they are simply making things up!

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588461)

I guess it is important to note that the DOJ either didn't know what its left hand was doing (unlikely) or this in indeed entrapment

Is it any less entrapment if it was through bureacratic bumbling rather than malice?

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588545)

Short answer: Yes, because it is still activity induced by the police that they would not have done except for the fact they were the DOJ.

Re:Huh? (2)

AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) | about 2 years ago | (#42588723)

My understanding, from reading both Mega's brief and the DOJ response, is that Mega is grasping at straws, but judging by the comments here, is doing so rather effectively. The point of the 'keep things secret' instructions from the DOJ actually only go so far as sealing the search warrant. They were not seeking cooperation from mega or carpathia, they had a court order compelling it. Cooperation was neither here nor there. The point was that they couldn't disclose the existence of the search warrant, as that was sealed to only carpathia, with exception to mega.

Furthermore, the only communication they submitted in support of the brief was an email from a director of carpathia to the mega directors. (there was a link to it in the Wired coverage of this) It states that the government wants the files themselves, and the director suggests aggregating them on to however many drives from the servers it would take, removing and replacing them, then sending those drives to the government. It then recommends not setting up an 'E7 ticket' whatever the hell that is, which would presumably alert the users in question that the files had been removed for a specific reason, rather than simply being unavailable because of server shenanigans. Far from producing a communication from the government saying 'please keep these files up and publicly available' they've produced an email that seems to indicate the government wants the physical drives from the servers on which the files reside. On the one hand, its not exactly fair to go to mega with this search warrant, and say, we're taking these thigns, but you cant let the people who use them know. On the other, i doubt that 'take down 39 of the however many millions of files you host and dont publicly post that they were removed in response to a court order' is really an undue burden. File lockers have server issues all the time.

I'm personally of the opinion that this whole clusterfuck is pointless, given the way the other file lockers filled the void mega left, and is ultimately a losing proposition by supporters of terribly written copyright laws. But without a document showing a governmental request that mega maintain those files publicly, this seems like dotcom's 'fuck'em we'll just do it anyway' business strategy biting him on the ass.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588797)

Did he actually lose money? Seems like he may have won. More so than say Napster's founder and CEO. Wasn't the funds siezed from dot-kom returned and extradition revoked or is about to be? or it never even got that far?

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587645)

They were asked to keep the files for an unrelated case. Then they were raided, and charge with copyright infringement for having the files the DOJ had earlier asked them to keep.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42587755)

Exactly.

"The government cannot, on one hand, tell a U.S. court under penalty of perjury in seeking the cooperation of Megaupload in a search warrant they wanted to prevent evidence destruction of alleged infringing content files, and then, on the other hand, complain to a different court under penalty of perjury that Megaupload is a criminal for not destroying such files," Rothken said in an email.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42587823)

It would seem that if Megaupload can produce a copy of the the first mentioned court order, and it pre-dates the raid, that it is case closed.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587965)

The first order was used as evidence in filing the second. There was even a /. story about it.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587657)

Yes. Except not just before the trial - before the charge of infringement was even raised against them.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587659)

No, it's entrapment because the DOJ said "Keep the files" then charged them with crimes for keeping the files. It's like when a police officer tells a drunk person to move their car, then when they do they arrest them for a DUI (and yes, this does happen). Dumb as shit, but hey, that's America!

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#42588169)

I have a good friend that got charged for drunk driving when a cop found her sleeping in her running car in the parking lot of a bar. The cop rolled up on her and asked what she was doing. She said she was too drunk to drive and didn't have anyone to come get her. It was 15 degrees out so she started the car and went to sleep. He immediately arrested her despite the fact that she never drove the car anywhere, simply putting the key in the ignition is apparently illegal. When they got back to the station she even blew bellow the legal limit, but she signed a statement describing what had happened which they then used as evidence against her in court and she lost. She spent the night in jail, paid a $1000 fine and lost her license for a year... for doing the right thing.

The moral of the story? Don't talk to the the police. Don't help them. Don't believe anything they tell you, it is perfectly legal for them to lie to you. Don't sign anything. Don't volunteer any information, even if you think it's helpful. You do one thing and one thing only: Ask for a lawyer over and over... and even then, it has happened, that the police send in the DA and tell you "here's a lawyer" and you admit everything while they're taping. It's legal, and it's been done. Fuck the police, they are not your friends, they are there to arrest you. If they can't arrest you, you are uninteresting to them.

Try it, call the police up sometime and report that your car was broken into... or your house... they may show up sometime in the next 12 to 48hrs... maybe... in my city you get to file a report over the phone to an answering machine. Then try calling them and telling them you've got an once of pot. You'll have 3 squad cars in your driveway in under 5 minutes. Welcome to American indeed.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#42588231)

Wow, you really are pretty ignorant of the law.

In fact, the keys don't have to be in the ignition. They only have to be accessible to you (as in, in your pocket, or on the seat next to you). If you crash out in your car drunk, unless your keys are nowhere to be found, you can be charged with a DUI.

http://www.myduiattorney.org/dui-tips/sleeping-it-off-yes-you-can-get-a-dui-in-your-sleep.html [myduiattorney.org]

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588313)

Wow, you really are pretty ignorant of the law.

He/she got one little detail wrong which did not impact the point of the story. Don't be such a snotty little shit.

Re:Huh? (2)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 2 years ago | (#42588329)

I think he was being sarcastic over just how ridiculous the law really is.

Re:Huh? (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | about 2 years ago | (#42588435)

Why does he need you to make his point!

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588463)

What does DUI stand for?

Re:Huh? (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#42588621)

"Driving under influence", basically, being behind the wheel without your tinfoil hat.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588655)

Can you explain why that should be a crime? Who is harmed? Who is even potentially harmed? Is the argument that someone could potentially be potentially harmed?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588663)

Wow, you really are pretty ignorant of the law.

And you are pretty ignorant about reading comprehension.

The parent post plainly and clearly already said everything you just did. -1 redundant.

Now not only are the police guilty of attempted murder, but so are you!
Why are you encouraging her to drive home drunk and/or freeze to death, instead of NOT driving home drunk and NOT freezing to death?

Fuck you up the ass buddy, I hope you get hit by a drunk driver and then freeze some toes off for your troubles for wishing this on others.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#42588249)

The moral of the story? Don't talk to the the police. Don't help them. Don't believe anything they tell you, it is perfectly legal for them to lie to you. Don't sign anything. Don't volunteer any information, even if you think it's helpful. You do one thing and one thing only: Ask for a lawyer over and over... and even then, it has happened, that the police send in the DA and tell you "here's a lawyer" and you admit everything while they're taping. It's legal, and it's been done. Fuck the police, they are not your friends, they are there to arrest you.

Most of what you say is true, except for the one about the DA. I am a lawyer, and we studied that case in my professional responsibility class - that defendant's statements were suppressed, and the DA was disbarred. You frequently can trust the bar overseers: one benefit of our adversarial system is that since the other side's lawyer is trying to fark you, and your lawyer is trying to fark them, the neutral party really does end up pretty neutral. Just don't trust the cops. They're always on the other side.

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#42588311)

You studied a case where the DA was stupid enough to submit it as evidence and then the defendant got a good lawyer and fought it. The way that game usually goes is the DA pulls his stunt, plays the tape back for the defendant, then leaves the room... the cops come in and offer a deal for a full confession which the accused who usually has an IQ of 90 takes in panic while the DA's out in the hall throwing his original tape in the trash. As long as the DA and arresting officer are buddies no-ones the wiser.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588583)

Well, until you get into court, the judge asks where your lawyer is, you point at the DA, and say, "That's the one they sent me when I was in custody." Yes, there are a few bad judges, but the overwhelming majority of them really dislike lawyers pulling unethical bullshit.

Re:Huh? (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#42588641)

What happened to the defendant guy, was he convicted?

Re:Huh? (0)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#42588253)

She didn't do the right thing. In many jurisdictions starting the car while over the limit is a an offense. Sitting in the driver's seat of a running car while over the limit is. Being the only person in a running car might even be (you could be considered to be in control of the vehicle). Since she ended up with a fine and lost her license it seems to be an offense in her jurisdiction and hence she wasn't "doing the right thing".

She also talked to the cops. That's also not "doing the right thing". And worse signed a statement! Without a lawyer. She's either a grade A moron, or was ridiculously sloshed.

Re:Huh? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#42588275)

I meant "Right" as in honerable, honest, best for society... not "right" as in, the correct, best thing for her self interest.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42588309)

With a proper legal system those should be the same.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588503)

Well, when you get arrested, let us know how well you kept your wits about you, didn't panic at all, and never made a judgement error under stress.

Re:Huh? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#42588605)

The one time I've been arrested I managed not to sign a confession so I'm way ahead already.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588261)

Boo hoo to your "good friend". There is a reason the crime you are describing is illegal. What if you're passed out in the driver's seat, and you or someone else puts your car into gear, you fidget and hit the gas?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588361)

What if, you had free will and could like, hurt people?

Bogus argument. Unless restrained 100% people could somehow do something to hurt someone, with something near by them.

Outlaw pencils, pens, fire, electricity, etc.

Your argument is invalid and only applied to things you irrationally want to remove from public use.

Re:Huh? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#42588697)

What if you're passed out in the driver's seat, and you or someone else puts your car into gear, you fidget and hit the gas?

Now explain how a parked car in a private parking lot, gets the parking brake released, and the car put into gear by someone who's not awake?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588453)

Sorry to hear somebody screwed you. Not every cop is a prick you know. There are lots of places to live in this country where people are nice.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#42588601)

Excellent anecdote. Here's an eye-opening video from a law school professor and a detective. Both of them agree, never talk to the police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587673)

So their argument is basically "It was entrapment because you didn't let us delete the infringing files before the trial"?

No... just no...

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42587697)

Hosting infringing files is allowed under the DMCA, not deleting them upon request from somebody claiming to own a copyright on it is what's illegal, which they say they weren't allowed to do.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587773)

Megaupload always had a policy of "if you report a DMCA violating file to us, we will delete it."

The DOJ basically told them, "don't delete any files that are reported to be DMCA violations."

A year later, the DOJ goes to Megaupload and says "you're hosting files that violate the DMCA! You're under arrest!"

Now, Megaupload is saying "we were hosting files that violated the DMCA because the DOJ wouldn't let us delete them!

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588119)

and the DOJ vanishes in a puff of logic...

Play on words (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588287)

"you're hosting files that violate the DMCA! You're under arrest!"

Hosting, as in distributing it as a copyright violation.

""don't delete any files that are reported to be DMCA violations."

Delete as in delete.

So the Megaupload claim rests on an idea that if you don't delete a file, you must then distribute it over the internet. A false dichotomy. It's quite a ludicrous claim, and the comments in this thread show a lot of people want this play on words to have substance, but it doesn't.

No judge will go along with that, the DMCA is a TAKEDOWN notice, not a delete evidence notice. This is a PR thing, not a legal thing, it's not for a judge, it's to make headlines which might (like Slashdot summary) might conflate deleting a file, with hosting and distributing a file.

Re:Play on words (1)

cjc25 (1961486) | about 2 years ago | (#42588441)

This is unfortunately the most useful post on this rah-rah thread. Shame you're AC and I have no mod points.

Re:Play on words (3, Informative)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42588617)

The charge was not because of hosting the files. They did comply with all DCMA take down notices they received and stopped hosting any infringing file reported. Evenso the DOJ charged them because they had the files stored, which DOJ itself had previously ordered them to do.

No they didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588777)

Read the filing, they deduped the files, so 50 links to the same file were links to one file.
As long as one link existed, the file was kept.
When they lost files, they created their own links.
The legal claim shows an email trail showing clear knowledge of these actions.
When a DMCA claim was requested, they'd take down the individual link, which isn't a takedown of copyright material.

So no, they didn't comply with DMCA requests, they certainly didn't stop hosting any infringing file reported.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587843)

As usual, the internet has no fucking idea what entrapment actually is. I don't think I've ever seen people use the concept correctly.

Re:Huh? (1)

Xeno man (1614779) | about 2 years ago | (#42588721)

Well fuck, that cleared that up real well. Oh wait...

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42587861)

No, the argument was that they were asked to keep the files as they were pursuant to a separate investigation.

Re:Huh? (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 years ago | (#42588507)

Their argument is that they were told that the DOJ wanted the files preserved specifically so that the copyright-infringers would not know an investigation was on-going.

The DOJ's argument is they never actually told Megaupload that because they never talked to Megaupload. The people the DOJ talked to were the people running Megaupload's servers (Carpathia, IIRC), those people are the ones who actually told Megaupload not to delete the files.

I suspect that legally the DOJ actually has a pretty strong case. It seems like if they didn't every drug-lord would just get a fall guy to write a letter to him saying "please continue to sell drugs so a DEA investigation into your customers can continue." I also suspect that if this evidence is presented at trial Megaupload will win. To convict you need 12 guys to all agree, and I don't doubt one guy will buy Megaupload's defense even if it technically wrong.

Keep? Or distribute? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587623)

"Well your honor, the DOJ said we should 'keep' the evidence, and we thought that meant, distribute it through myriad of links, some of which we created to keep it alive.... so we were the victims of entrapment, and by entrapment, I mean intentionally pretending to misunderstanding something in order to try to create outrage from the headlines that might swing a decision in our favor."

Re:Keep? Or distribute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588057)

Devil is in the details.
We dont know if pigs didnt use traffic control to uncover something else.
Who knows what vidoes or music or whatever it was contained.
You can easilly contain other information but video inside of video files.
If pigs had legal authority and said to leave files on server without doing anything else - id just comply, imho thats what they did.
blindly complyed.

He said/She said (5, Interesting)

gabereiser (1662967) | about 2 years ago | (#42587625)

Only the logs will tell... Wasn't the claim by Kim Dotcom that the DOJ requested to host on his network files pertaining to copyright infringement and then, a year or so later, busted him for copyright infringement and took his network down? His smoking gun is the communiqué between his company and the DOJ and the log files of said uploads and access, which are on the servers the DOJ took, which are probably no longer there... ...and the cycle continues. Honestly if I was on that jury I would acquit due to lack of undeniable evidence... Yes, megaupload servers hosted some copyright infringement material, is Megaupload responsible? Absolutely not, unless they themselves uploaded the content. It was written in the user agreement NOT to use the service for hosting of copyright material so it's a matter of finding the users responsible and punish them... oh, sorry, right, that would require actual detective work, of which the DOJ has forgotten how to do.

Re:He said/She said (1, Insightful)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 years ago | (#42588515)

Strictly speaking Megaupload was not ordered by the DoJ to do anything to these files. The people who were ordered to do something were Megaupload's hosting provider, which told Megaupload not to do anything that would tip off the "owners" of these files.

The exact legal implications of this are unclear, but I'd say it makes Megaupload's defense much trickier unless they can get Carpathia to document that the DoJ wanted those files kept.

Re:He said/She said (1)

gabereiser (1662967) | about 2 years ago | (#42588603)

which i believe is what they are trying to do no? It's all about proving the DoJ wanted to keep those files in-tact and not remove them, then they turn around and seize megaupload itself...

Of Course (2)

Silicon-Surfer (1412381) | about 2 years ago | (#42587635)

They would say that wouldn't they.

entrapment? (1)

hguorbray (967940) | about 2 years ago | (#42587639)

don't know whether it is true or not, but it is not exactly entrapment when the investigating body asks you to continue doing something illegal while they investigate, but it could be some sort of 'under color of authority' deal where it is not right for police to tell you to do something (or continue to do something) illegal either.

Of course, if MU were already hosting illegal materials before this point then they were presumably still/already infringing....but along with some pretty questionable co-operation by NZ authorities this case may not be looking too good...

-I'm just sayin'

Re:entrapment? (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42587747)

Hosting illegal material is not a crime under DCMA. Not deleting it once they receive note is. But they couldn't delete any file because DOJ told them there was an investigation under way and the files were evidence. Destroying evidence is a crime.

Re:entrapment? (1)

sonofd (2814721) | about 2 years ago | (#42587873)

So, in actuality, they didn't "receive note" if the DOJ asked them to keep the files....

Re:entrapment? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42588171)

They could even have received note, but even if they did, they still could not destroy evidence. It is like a cop knowing you are drunk and ordering you to drive. Driving drunk is a felony, but disobeying the officer too. Best thing you can do is do as he says and let him explain later why he ordered you to do so.

They had to have (4, Interesting)

metrix007 (200091) | about 2 years ago | (#42587647)

There was no due process involved in that case. If the court was not misled, then the court is corrupt and had knowledge of what was going on when the warrants were issued.

Atrocious.

US DOJ (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587669)

Didn't follow the damm law either.

if you wan't to fight crime i think you need to start in your own ranks first. Everyone involved in this little episode of illegality deserves to goto jail.

It's ironic the biggest criminals in this case... Were the people making the case. Broke actual long standing laws internationally. Not iffy 'infringment' things you could argue either way.

The government lies and gets caught all the time (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587693)

The government lies and gets caught all the time. There is almost zero recourse for it.

Here is as much recourse as I have ever seen and I have looked:

http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf

JJ

Re:The government lies and gets caught all the tim (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587991)

The whole point of your US government is, to be the scapegoat to blame everything on.
And when the one side of the shield is used up, it gets flipped around, and the other side gets the hate, while brainwashing and propaganda whitewash the old side.

I mean everyone who votes for one of those two parties again after the other one was in power once, literally cannot be considered an individual life-form with a free will anymore! It is a bot. A drone. Infected and controlled by a disease. By an Agent Smith. It must be eradicated. Now.

federal copyright enforcement (5, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 years ago | (#42587699)

You get these kinds of problems with criminal copyright infringement charges from the federal government: they are subject to political pressures by various powerful industry groups, they have extremely high costs for the targets even if unsuccessful, but the people responsible can't be held accountable. Criminal penalties for copyright infringement should just be abolished; they serve no useful purpose.

Re:federal copyright enforcement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588007)

The problem is they arent just going after Megaupload for copyright infringement, but for racketeering, and money laundering too. You know, offering serivces and enticements for users to use Megaupload, and spending the money they made on things like wages for their staff.

Guys, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587723)

You don't need to put quotes around the word baseless if it's used in its proper context. Yes, even if it was their exact wording.

But, then they would say so. (5, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#42587787)

This is a non-event - prosecutors basically never admit error, until they are forced to.

On this subject, there is a White House petition to Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz [whitehouse.gov] .

Re:But, then they would say so. (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#42588409)

Thank you; I've just signed it. Not because I expect it to do any good, but because I'm curious about just what self-serving excuse the administration will come up with for not getting rid of a government official who doesn't understand the limits of his authority.

Re:But, then they would say so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588681)

AC cuz moderated. Thank you for the link. Signed. Doubt it will help, but as the dude said, 'all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing', with appropriate updates for gender. It's the least I could do.

(rolls eyes) whatever....(continue ignoring) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587791)

I've got better things to do than watch another second of my life go by sitting around listening and reading any more bull$#1t from another govt agency.I give up. I'm going back to playing my guitar.

Poor U$A, (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587819)

your credibility ended long ago.

Eastern District = RAILROAD JOB CENTRAL. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587905)

And yeah, I was indeed YELLING in the subject line.

For those who do not yet know, the Eastern District of Va. is where the Feds
take a case when they want to be sure they get what they had in mind when they
began the investigation of whatever they are investigating.

It is a kangaroo court in the most extreme sense of the word.

Shit like this is why I will never ever live in Virginia again, though I was born
there.

Virginia is the center of fascism in the United States. Though I do have to give
a nod to Texas as not being far behind. If there is ever a revolution in the US,
the idiots who make up the majority of the populations in Virginia and Texas will
be the enemy, for those of us who have brains.

You LIE DoJ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42587943)

Aaron Swartz is dead. We do not forget.

You throw the weight of the entire government against those who offend the corporate intellectual property interests.

But not against the banksters, the torturers, the money-launderers, the bribers, the corrupt officials, the war criminals, the embezzlers, the fraudsters.

No, the FULL power of the DoJ is reserved for juvenile hackers, pot growers and pirates.

You want to know how the DoJ will prosecute a case?

Are there millions of victims, of one pwerful, privileged, rich organization?
Or powerful, privileged and rich victims?

In the first case, it would be bad for the "system" (ie the rich and powerful) so no prosecutions, no jail, no meaningful fines.

In the second case, merciless, ruthless, extortionate and crushing prosecution.

Aaron Swartz is dead, we will not forget

Re:You LIE DoJ (4, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42588011)

The difference is minimal... offenders of imaginary property are jailed in, rich and powerful are bailed out. See? Barely any difference.

Re:You LIE DoJ (-1, Troll)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#42588089)

Aaron Swartz committed a service violation that resulted in the loss of that service to thousands of other law abiding users for several days DO NOT FORGET.

He is no martyr, he was a punk and got popped for pilfering paid for content in order to "liberate it"
You steal, you steal. Doing electronically makes it wire-fraud.

Don't want to go to PMITAP? Don't commit wire-fraud.

Re:You LIE DoJ (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#42588205)

Correction it is not theft as the original owner still has his copy it is copyright infringement, other wise you are steeling every time you use a photocopier

Re:You LIE DoJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588525)

Aaron Swartz committed a service violation that resulted in the loss of that service to thousands of other law abiding users for several days DO NOT FORGET.

He is no martyr, he was a punk and got popped for pilfering paid for content in order to "liberate it"
You steal, you steal. Doing electronically makes it wire-fraud.

Don't want to go to PMITAP? Don't commit wire-fraud.

Oh, well that's worth 35 years..... it's worse than rape.

Baseless? (1)

ygslash (893445) | about 2 years ago | (#42588087)

Dotcom's claims were only "baseless" in the sense that they were not base and evil, unlike the DOJ's behavior in this case.

choices? (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#42588191)

So my choice is to believe the US DOJ or Kim Dotcom? You're fucking kidding me? Can't we just give them both clubs and let them beat each other to death? Either way it comes out I think the world would be a better place.

Entrapment, or 5th Amendment violation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588267)

I'd argue rather than entrapment that the DoJ has compelled Dotcom to testify against itself

Not to be on the side of the Government, but... (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 2 years ago | (#42588395)

This conundrum seems to be pretty simple if you think about "evidence" versus "a business model."

If the government tells you NOT to delete infringing content -- that doesn't mean you have to MAKE IT AVAILABLE. So it really isn't a contradiction for the government is they go after files that got a DMCA take down notice but were still available for download.

If they made the issue about "don't delete" and then penalize them for not deleting -- that's pretty stupid, and they've killed their case.

It seems strange that someone is actually getting paid to enforce laws and yet makes such really obvious mistakes. Such incompetence will probably embolden copyright violators.

Reminds me of the scene from Raising Arizona; "You just told me to Freeze, if'n I raise my hands, I'll be moving, and if I freeze, I can't raise my hands..."

Re:Not to be on the side of the Government, but... (2)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | about 2 years ago | (#42588521)

Believe it or not, it's actually not that simple. The government did not merely ask Megaupload to not delete evidence - they asked Megaupload to avoid doing anything that might alert anyone that there was even an investigation. Actually, the government asked Carpathia to ask Megaupload. Go figure...

Re:Not to be on the side of the Government, but... (0)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 years ago | (#42588595)

According to everything I've read the reason the files weren't supposed to be deleted was that the DOJ did not want to tip off their owners that the game was up. Which means that as far as Megaupload knew, they couldn't alter the files in any way.

Megaupload's problem is that they haven't proven the DOJ itself ever told them this. They have proven their hosting provider Carpathia showed them a warrant saying that Carpathia and Megaupload should not “provide an opportunity to destroy evidence [and] change patterns of behavior,” but for all Megaupload knew Carpathia forged the dang thing.

I honestly have no idea whose right legally. Anybody want to bet that the original subject of the DOJ investigation 9in 2010 was actually Megaupload?

It's sad (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 2 years ago | (#42588543)

It's sad, but I don't believe anything our government says anymore.

Too much stench (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42588591)

Given the corrupt stench pervading this whole sorry affair, I'm finding it hard to believe anything coming from the prosecution.

The DoJ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588685)

In the film "Guys and Dolls" a gangster named Big Julie wants to play craps with some other gangsters, but he wants to use some blank dice that all the pips have rubbed off of. But one of Big Julie's goons says it is ok, because Big Julie remembers where the pips were, and anyone who does not trust Big Julie on this should allow himself to get measured for a cement overcoat.

Surprisingly, Big Julie's luck with these dice is a great winning streak, and it seems he cannot lose no matter what.

The US-DOJ == Big Julie.

Lee Harvey Oswald Claimed He Did Not kill JFK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42588781)

He was killed non the less.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?