DOTCOM saga - updates

[Renegade]

40hz note to myself: Stop reading TechDirt and take it off bookmark list. All it does is make you angry. And speaking purely from a clinical perspective, you really can't afford to indulge in that level of rage at your age.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 03:12 PM)

Good point. Same goes for the EFF site, Torrent Freak, and a truckload of other sites. Pretty much any news.

I find that it helps to simply laugh at the insanity. It helps keep the anger/rage at bay. After all, anger is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

Dude has a point! He's not going to win. (Which is a good thing for his health and personal safety - presidents that like the United States government to issue currency get assassinated.) But voting for him at least sends a message that you're sick of the same crap all the time.

-Renegade (October 24, 2012, 10:12 AM)

That's BS (IMO).  It might send a message for you, but not for anyone else that cares.  Too much money is tied up in the two political parties for any other party to be viable, and they know that.  And knowing that, the marginal vote for other candidates sends no real message, especially not a lasting one.  And the biggest reason that we don't have a viable third party (and truthfully we need 4 for real change) is that the other parties don't know how to work in small steps.  It would take decades of concerted effort to create a viable third party, but working lower offices in an organized manner to spread the candidates and the messages.

-wraith808 (October 24, 2012, 08:45 PM)

I can certainly see why you'd think that I'm full of BS there.

I just can't help thinking about voting for the lesser of 2 evils and: "So, how's voting for evil working out for you?"

Right now it pretty much looks like people are being asked who they'd like to have their face kicked in by. Either way, you're going to get a boot stamping in your face, so why not refuse to answer and instead spit in their face? I see voting for someone else, like Gary Johnson, as spitting in their face.

[wraith808]

I can certainly see why you'd think that I'm full of BS there.

I just can't help thinking about voting for the lesser of 2 evils and: "So, how's voting for evil working out for you?"

Right now it pretty much looks like people are being asked who they'd like to have their face kicked in by. Either way, you're going to get a boot stamping in your face, so why not refuse to answer and instead spit in their face? I see voting for someone else, like Gary Johnson, as spitting in their face.

-Renegade (October 24, 2012, 10:26 PM)

I actually didn't mean you... I meant him.  And from what I've seen, you're only alternative until you become an alternative.  There's just no way to get to that level playing that game without becoming who you're playing against.  And yes, you can view it as spitting in their face, but I remember an old adage that hating someone is like taking poison and expecting them to die.  I guess that's my point- in no way shape or form does voting for Gary Johnson (or not voting) hurt the status quo.  All it does is make one more vote off the playing field.  Though they appear the same, you can believe that what they put through is to some extent different.  And though you might not be able to affect the political hot potatoes that they're going to pretty much punt or vote the same way or do the same thing about, those other issues that are different are not insignificant.

[Renegade]

I actually didn't mean you... I meant him.  And from what I've seen, you're only alternative until you become an alternative.  There's just no way to get to that level playing that game without becoming who you're playing against.

-wraith808 (October 24, 2012, 11:05 PM)

And I thought I was cynical!

I would like to think that it is possible to get there without becoming them. See - I do have a few optimistic tendencies~!

[wraith808]

LOL

In terms of that, yeah... unless you're able to rouse the rabble to change the rules, you have to play by the rules as set out.  And those rules are played in such a way that to get ahead, you have to sell a bit of yourself.  And by the time that you get there, you've sold everything that made you an alternative.

And I am pretty cynical in some areas, which actually manifests in strange ways in terms of my final output.  

For example, you posted that 9/11 bit.  The reason that I don't believe that the conspiracy theorists are right that it was the government is a two-fold reason.

1. The government has already shown themselves to be incompetent.
2. The government has already shown themselves to be incapable of keeping secrets.

At this level, there would have had to be a frightening level of competency to create the scenario shown, and a level of secrecy on the level of the so-called Illuminati for no concrete evidence of what actually happened to come forth, i.e the grassy knoll and the second shooter.

So, taking these, and going with the simplest solution- everyone wanted a reason and someone to blame, and was asking the government to find out for them.  In it's usual inept way, the government rushed to judgement and released a half-arsed response, that didn't cover all of the evidence.  Now, in their usual way, they try to cover up the fact that they were half-arsed, which then looks like a cover up in general.

It's more cinematic and validating to think that there must have been a cover up.  But I think it's more realistic to think that it's just business as usual.

And yeah, read that book I pointed out.  It's pretty dystopian, but strangely in that, not depressing.  But it covers a whole lot about this, and some of the lines are real zingers.

Oh, and to see the differences (and note that the ones that don't make a difference internally are not included), there's a good comparison on this site where they evaluate the last debate (http://www.news.com....dir2ev-1226501175764).  It's funny that to get anywhere near reasoned reporting on the US elections, you have to look on news sites outside of the US.  But that's a different subject...

[superboyac]

More updates, very interesting:
http://news.cnet.com...as-me.ga-in-january/

MegaUpload will be reborn as Me.ga in January

The service will also not make use of any U.S. hosting companies. Me.ga will also enable copyright owners will be able to get "direct delete access" of pirated content provided they agree not to hold Me.ga's operators responsible for the infringement, DotCom told Reuters.

[Renegade]

Me.ga is redirecting to kim.com/mega, but the page is blank.

Not so sure that the "direct delete" will work out well. I might want to upload a bunch of video that I have the right to upload, then label it with all kinds of names of copyrighted material and see what happens...

[IainB]

Some developments...
Unsealed Megaupload Seizure Warrants Reveal Use Of Flawed Logic... And An 'Undercover Computer'

[Renegade]

Flawed logic? From self-righteous psychopathic jackbooted thugs? Nah. Couldn't be. 

They sum it up nicely as "that makes no sense".

[40hz]

Once again we have a demonstration of how a poorly written law; political pressure from commercial interests; and a technologically naive but overzealous police agency created an embarrassing situation for a government. A government which now is now continuing to spawn legal chicanery and nonsense as it tries to talk/spin/lie its way out of the embarrassment it has created for itself.

One unwritten rule of power politics is that it's not important whether or not you're right - so long as you're never proven to be conclusively wrong.

And here's the problem for Kim Dotcom: how will the US government find a way to walk away without looking like a total ass. Because at this point - it can't. And as long as it might look like the governments of NZ and the US were completely out of line with this incident, it's never going to stop.

Prediction: Kim Dotcom is going to be offered a "deal" where he'll be required to plead guilty or "no contest" to some very minor charge(s), pay a fine, be required to make some half-assed public apology to the music/movie industry, and promise to never ever do it again - despite the fact he didn't do anything provably illegal under the law as it's currently written.

In return he'll be required to waive his right to seek any future legal recourse for the incident. And probably consent not to discuss or reveal any of the details about the deal he was offered.

Be interesting to see if he ends up taking it.

[Renegade]

Be interesting to see if he ends up taking it.

-40hz (November 17, 2012, 06:31 AM)

Definitely. Though given some of what he's said in the past, I'm betting he wouldn't. Could just be wishful thinking on my part though. I have more things that I can pull out of my butt. Wanna see?

[IainB]

@40hz: I suspect that you might have summarised the situation pretty accurately. It will be interesting to see how close your prediction is as events unfold.

[40hz]

Yeah. Unfortunately in this case the game has completely shifted. It's no longer about copyrights and IP laws. It's now about the "powers that be" saving face. And that's a very dangerous game to be caught up in.

It's also usually not a game you can win unless you can topple a throne or two in the process.

Long-term, I'm not too bullish on Kim's chances of survival unless he agrees to work something out. There's a saying that the deadliest enemy you can have is somebody who wronged you first - and knows it. And Kim certainly has one (or more) of those right now.

By the same token there's wisdom in the old saw that begins with "he who fights, then runs away..."

I think I'll end up respecting Kim no matter which way he plays this one.

[wraith808]

I think I'll end up respecting Kim no matter which way he plays this one.

-40hz (November 17, 2012, 08:46 AM)

I'm already respecting him for making it this far...

[40hz]

I think I'll end up respecting Kim no matter which way he plays this one.

-40hz (November 17, 2012, 08:46 AM)

I'm already respecting him for making it this far...

-wraith808 (November 17, 2012, 09:55 AM)

Oui, je suis d'accord avec vous!

[IainB]

Worth a read:
Megaupload Search Warrant Requests Ignored Massive Non-Infringing Use

As a direct result of the Megaupload raid many legitimate users of the site lost access to their personal files. To find out why the Government put the interests of copyright holders before those of the public, one user convinced the court to unseal the seizure warrant matarials. Surprisingly, however, there is absolutely no mention of Megaupload’s legal use in the released records. In a response Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom says the whole case is a tragic copyright comedy...
(Read the rest at the link.)

Looking at it in practical terms, how might you go about this Dotcom raid if you were the US authorities pursuing the matter?
Some people - not me you understand - might suggest that you could perhaps take the following approach:

• Objective:
  Stated objective - To nail and bring to justice a commercial group suspected of copyright crime.
  Primary objective 1: To destroy their business enterprise rather than succeed in them being found guilty (guilt being likely to be too difficult to substantiate).
  Primary objective 2: To communicate the message that so-called "copyright crime" could be met with penalties worse than death and is just not worth it.
  
  
• Constraints:
  All strategic instructions and directions are to come from the **AA.
  The police/SS authorities are to be responsible for devising/executing the strategy for surveillance, SWAT and seizure in their respective territories.
  
  
• Problem:
  Authority to proceed needs to be based on evidence that a serious large-scale money-laundering/Mafia-type crime has been committed, however accusations are weak on substantive evidential proof.
  
  
• Solution:
  
  • Make the proof up! For example, including fitting-up the suspects by getting them to behave like they committed a crime, by telling them to follow the directions from the FBI, during surveillance. Don't mention that you did that in the seizure warrant or subsequent charges/accusations. It'll leak out later.
  • So as to avoid the thing going to trial, arrange to make the raid illegal by default, so that charges will reluctantly have to be dropped - "It was a 'genuine mistake' yer honour".
  • Collaborate closely with the police/SS authorities and keep stressing the threats/risks so as to wind them up into a feva and testosterone/adrenaline-fuelled feel-good state of high alertness.
  • Communicate using FEAR: Act like terrorists so as to make an example that will literally terrify other suspected/potential copyright "criminals" (that's potentially every consumer on the planet). Let the dogs of war loose - make it a no-holds-barred, fun-filled SWAT-fest-with-prejudice exercise! Make it seriously over-the-top excessive violence at all times. (Don't waste all that testosterone/adrenaline!)
    

    "That's the way to do it!" (- Punch, in Punch and Judy).
  • Wiretapping the suspects illegally (without warrant).
  • After seizure, don't mention the humungus amount of legitimate property held on the servers. If there's any liability for damages or consequential losses from any of this, it's an externality that the State will be obliged to foot the bill for.
  • Effectively commit a crime (you're doing all this illegally, don't forget) against tens of thousands of people's property - and probably that of the suspects' themselves - by unwarranted and deliberate excessive use of force and seizure, seizing all servers and property (content/data), in order to destroy the suspect's business. Just Go For It and never mind the collateral damage - this is a SWAT-fest, don't forget!
  • Encourage the police to commit borderline/actual perjury in court, when giving their testimony. They are to just do their job the best they can.
  
  
• Remember to ensure that you do all this illegally - because the warrants were invalid (both in the US and New Zealand, and maybe elsewhere too).
  

No, promising as this might seem, I really do think that it would be highly inadvisable to follow such an approach as is being suggested above by these people.
I mean, if you did actually do all that has been suggested, then wouldn't it rather look like as well as actually be an illegal action committed by police/SS authorities internationally?
I could be wrong, of course, but that could arguably be a close fit with the definition of a monumental State clusterfark. And then the State would also have the devil of a job trying to pay for and clear up the mess and discombobulation afterwards. Think of the cost in lost votes!

Oh, but wait...maybe that explains why the DOJ dragged their feet so much over releasing the sealed seizure warrant documents...

[Renegade]

^^ Good post!

Oh, but wait...maybe that explains why the DOJ dragged their feet so much over releasing the sealed seizure warrant documents...

-IainB (November 18, 2012, 10:46 PM)

What was it that the 'J' in 'DOJ' stood for again...

The obvious answer...

Jackboots

[IainB]

This post from TorrentFreak makes a reasonable summary of a lot of what seems to be fundamentally wrong about this Dotcom fiasco - it really does seem to look rather like a deliberate fit-up.
If it is, then what a national shaming if the New Zealand judiciary and the PM continue to play along with it. I suspect that, if it had happened in the UK, then the extradition case - and any other legal action against Dotcom - would have been thrown out of court by this stage.
That probably wouldn't happen in a banana republic though.
(TorrentFreak post copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

Megaupload Assisted FBI vs NinjaVideo, But Evidence Then Used Against Them

In 2010, individuals from the now-defunct NinjaVideo site stored copyright-infringing videos on the servers of Megaupload. These subsequently came to the attention of the FBI who were conducting an investigation into NinjaVideo and its operators. As a result Megaupload was served with a criminal search warrant requiring it to hand over information to the authorities, but in a cruel twist Megaupload’s cooperation and a desire not to destroy evidence is now being used as evidence against it.

The February 2012 “Superseding Indictment” document, which lays out the Grand Jury charges against Megaupload, runs to 90-pages long and contains dozens of allegations of illegal behavior against the operators of the now-shuttered file-hosting site.

As outlined in our discussions this week, Dotcom says that some of the allegations are misleading, particularly one claiming that Megaupload failed to delete infringing video files from its servers.

“A member of the Mega Conspiracy informed several of his co-conspirators [in 2010] that he located the named files using internal searches of the Mega Conspiracy’s systems,” the DoJ wrote.

“As of November, 18 2011, thirty-six or the thirty-nine infringing copies of the copyrighted motion pictures were still being stored on servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy.”

Out of context the claim, that Megaupload ignores the DMCA, looks bad. However, when the full picture is put forward – that Megaupload found these files because a criminal search warrant from the FBI required them to do so – things start to look quite different.

And the plot thickens. Wired has discovered that the infringing files were put on Megaupload’s servers by individuals connected to the now-defunct streaming video site NinjaVideo.

The FBI were conducting a criminal investigation into NinjaVideo (which later resulted in several of its operators going to jail) and required Megaupload’s cooperation after serving the company with a search warrant in June 2010, just days before NinjaVideo was raided.

“Megaupload complied with the warrant and cooperated with the government’s request,” Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken confirms.

According to Kim Dotcom, the FBI made it clear that the warrant should be kept quiet so as not to jeopardize the NinjaVideo inquiry.

“The agent was concerned that the target could be warned and that this needs to be handled confidentially,” Dotcom informs TorrentFreak.

The Megaupload founder says that this warning was taken seriously and that since the files were clearly evidence in the case none of them were interfered with.

“Obviously when the FBI contacted us they made this clear to us and therefore we did not touch the accounts or the files,” he says.

“We even emailed back to Carpathia [Megaupload's US server host] to ask the FBI (and the FBI had our emails before asking for the Mega domain seizure) if we should do anything about those files. We never got a response.”

But the criminal investigation against NinjaVideo and evidential issues in that respect were pushed aside when it came to building a case against Megaupload and seizing its domain.

“To use this against us and to tell a Judge that the Megaupload domain seizure is justified because we have not removed those 39 files is totally unethical and misleading,” Dotcom concludes.

The fact that the infringing files remained on Mega’s leased servers led the U.S. government to claim that Megaupload infringed copyright, despite the company having been served the original NinjaVideo search warrant as the site’s service provider, one that presumably should have received safe-harbor protection under the DMCA.

As previously reported, NinjaVideo founder Hana Beshara was eventually sentenced to 22 months in jail and ordered to repay almost $210,000.

[Stoic Joker]

In 2010, individuals from the now-defunct NinjaVideo site stored copyright-infringing videos on the servers of Megaupload. These subsequently came to the attention of the FBI who were conducting an investigation into NinjaVideo and its operators. As a result Megaupload was served with a criminal search warrant requiring it to hand over information to the authorities, but in a cruel twist Megaupload’s cooperation and a desire not to destroy evidence is now being used as evidence against it.

-IainB (November 22, 2012, 02:27 AM)

Leave no good deed unpunished - Where was that Don't Talk to the Police video again? I think we need a link to it here.

[40hz]

I think we need a link to it here.

-Stoic Joker (November 22, 2012, 08:51 AM)

We do. Here's two. Both are worth watching.

Please note that most police officers are law abiding and responsible individuals. Unfortunately, they're subject to political and peer pressure (being members of what is society's official "gang"). And all it takes is one rogue officer or less than honest superior and most otherwise honest police can be put in a situation where they may decide it's simply wiser to "go with the flow" rather than buck their fellow officers.

Here it is from a criminal attorney's presentation at a law school:

On a more practical note, this 45 minute video is pretty much the single best video I've ever seen on how to deal with the police in their official capacity. Most of this won't be too helpful if it turns out you actually did violate the law. But it will go a  long way to protecting you if you haven't.

And as any attorney will tell you, it's not necessary that you actually break the law to get arrested - or even worse, be convicted for doing so.

 

[superboyac]

40...you're the man!!

[Renegade]

Leave no good deed unpunished - Where was that Don't Talk to the Police video again? I think we need a link to it here.

-Stoic Joker (November 22, 2012, 08:51 AM)

Just some more information about that video:

James Duane, law professor at Regent University
George Brunch, Virginia Beach Police Department

James Duane
http://www.regent.ed...ulty_staff/duane.cfm

His full profile:
http://www.regent.ed...ty_staff/duanecv.cfm

The first mention on the page of that video:

"In Praise of the Fifth Amendment: Why No Criminal Suspect Should Ever Talk to the Police. Presentation at Yale University. New Haven, Connecticut. December 11, 2008."

The video is below as well.

You can also find it here on the university law blog:
http://regentlawfacu...sor-james-duane.html

[IainB]

@40hz: Thanks for those video links. I had seen and downloaded the first video some time ago, via a DCF link in another discussion thread, but I had not seen the 2nd vid.
Amazing that you actually do seem to need educational/self-defence videos like this, to maintain your constitutional rights, in a supposedly "free" country and where the aggressors in this case are apparently the police.

[Renegade]

On a more practical note, this 45 minute video is pretty much the single best video I've ever seen on how to deal with the police in their official capacity. Most of this won't be too helpful if it turns out you actually did violate the law. But it will go a  long way to protecting you if you haven't.

And as any attorney will tell you, it's not necessary that you actually break the law to get arrested - or even worse, be convicted for doing so.

 

-40hz (November 22, 2012, 10:46 AM)

Just finished watching that. Thanks for posting it! 

[IainB]

This isn't an update, but an interesting and thought-provoking post from reason.com:
(Copied below sans embeddd hyperlinks/images, with my emphasis.)

Did the Feds Set-Up MegaUpload?

J.D. Tuccille|Nov. 26, 2012 8:11 pm

The long-running MegaUpload saga has become known for the Keystone-Kops shenanigans of New Zealand authorities who secured the wrong legal documents and broke laws against domestic spying in executing the will of their high-handed American masters — understandable, since incompetence and snoopiness are easier to grasp than the intricacies of intellectual property law. But the copyright claims that killed the once-huge company and set in motion events that may well determine how Kiwis cast their votes next election are still in play. And it emerged recently that some of the files that MegaUpload is accused of storing in violation of copyright law were actually retained at the request of the United States government.
 
According to Wired:

Eighteen months before Megaupload’s operators were indicted in the United States, the company complied with a secret U.S. search warrant targeting five of its users, who were running their own file-sharing service using Megaupload’s infrastructure, according to interviews and newly unsealed court documents.
 
The June 24, 2010 warrant to search the Megaupload servers in Virginia was part of a U.S. criminal investigation into NinjaVideo, which was piggy-backing on Megaupload’s “Megavideo” streaming service. Though the feds had already begun quietly investigating Megaupload months before, in this case the government treated Megaupload as NinjaVideo’s internet service provider, serving Megaupload with the warrant and asking them to keep it quiet.

What did MegaUpload get for its troubles?

Despite Megaupload’s cooperation, the 39 infringing NinjaVideo files were later used against the popular file-sharing service as evidence to seize Megaupload.com domains and prosecute Dotcom and others connected to the site.

The apparent entrapment may not be so straightforward, since the forbidden files were also found elsewhere on MegaUpload's servers. Theoretically, then, the U.S. Department of Justice could be going after MegaUpload for those other copies, rather than the ones it asked the company to retain.
 
But ...
 
In the past year, we've had internationally coordinated armed raids, as well as a full-court press by the United States government, all over a friggin' copyright case against a company that has a history of cooperating with American authorities. Yes, there is, potentially, a lot of money in digital music and movie files, but this all seems oddly disprportionate to the core concerns in the case. Especially when it turns out that MegaUpload had previously worked with the feds, and the U.S. is complaining about files it asked the company to retain.
 
Far be it from me to suggest—
 
Oh, screw it. No, it isn't. The fact is, it increasingly looks like the United States government rented out the Department of Justice as a hit squad to the entertainment industry to enforce a contract on MegaUpload.

[40hz]

No surprises there. They did the same favor for the railroads before that.