DOJ Didn't Need SOPA to Shutdown "rogue site" MegaUpload | Hacker News Reader

DOJ Didn't Need SOPA to Shutdown "rogue site" MegaUpload

venturebeat.com

131 pointsbproper34 comments

They didn't need SOPA because they took the time and effort needed to get a warrant.

The argument against SOPA is not that sites could be shut down, but that there needs to be a very demonstrable reason for it--with warrants and evidence and judges signatures. With SOPA, the site can be shut down based on accusation alone, and THAT is the problem.

Well, to be precise, this site was indeed shut down based on accusation alone. The operators of the site have been charged with criminal offenses, but until they're actually convicted in a court of law, they're presumed by U.S. law to be innocent. So what's the justification for shutting down the site before the jury renders a verdict? And if the jury acquits them (we don't know how strong the government's case really is, so it's certainly possible), will the government compensate them for their lost earnings?

It was shutdown based on a warrant that was issued based on an accusation (and probably at least some evidence), which makes all the difference.

The fact that a warrant and an indictment were issued doesn't mean that these guys did anything wrong. Lots of people who are indicted are later acquitted. The fact that there is evidence doesn't mean that there's enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for conviction in criminal cases) that a crime has been committed. The defendants have a right to present their own evidence to the contrary.

The U.S. Constitution has all these nice phrases like "due process of law" (see 5th Amendment), but they don't really mean anything if the government can take your property away without your having been convicted by a jury in a fair trial where you had adequate legal representation. Nothing terrible would happen if the government were to leave the web site up until a jury convicted these people.

If you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you want to have a chance to defend yourself in court before you had your property taken away?

If you are accused of a crime, you are detained. You can get bail, but only if you can convince the judge that you aren't likely to re-offend (or flee) during the bail period.

It's the same basic principle.

The point is, there's stuff like formal charges, warrants, and so on which have to be taken care of. The cops can't just impound your car because someone said you were using it to ship stolen property - they need to get a warrant.

Precisely. When the government shuts down a website that is a punishment. Our laws are designed such that for any punishment meted out by authority there must be due process. The accused have a right to a trial, to counsel, to face their accusers, to see and rebut the evidence against them. The authorities have limits on the way they can gather evidence. The accused enjoy the assumption of innocence and the requirement to prove guilt. Even if one trial finds the accused guilty of a crime there are multiple stages of appeals to higher courts available.

Fully half of the bill of rights concerns freedom of expression or due process. SOPA was an attempt to rip that away, to stamp the internet as a constitution free zone. Considering that the internet will soon be the primary backbone of industry, personal and business communication, and the dissemination of news, that is a very dangerous development if we wish to preserve individual liberty.

I don't think it's an outright error to relate this to SOPA. These latest sets of laws (such as NDAA) seem to be more about legitimizing the recent actions of the Executive Branch (Bradley Manning) than about giving them a significantly larger amount of more power.

This further proves that laws against this exact kind of thing have to be created, simply abolishing PIPA / SOPA is NOT by any means enough.

It's not OK to do this. This kind of thing has to stop.

> It's not OK to do this. This kind of thing has to stop.

What kind of thing? If even half the things in the indictment are true, MegaUpload was designed and operated specifically to make money off of massive copyright infringement.

It's up to a jury to decide whether the prosecution has proven its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not up to the government or a judge or the media or the readers of HN to decide this.

If the government alleged that your web site (lets assume you have one) was a criminal enterprise designed specifically to make money off copyright infringement, wouldn't you want them to have to prove their case to a jury before shutting you down? If so, you should demand the same right of due process for everyone else.

That's because it had servers in the U.S. SOPA is aimed at companies that keep their ops outside the U.S.

I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested.

So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks?

MegaUpload was cited a number of times during the Judiciary Committee Hearing. But they mispoke more often than not.

Yes, if they have operations in the US they can be prosecuted, I believe. What's even worse for Megaupload in this case is that they had started legal proceedings themselves in the US. If they can use the US law, they have to abide them.

So if my operations based in another country infringe US laws, they can get me and bring me there to be judged ? What do we call that when North Korea does that again ? Kidnapping.

If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country, it will be an interesting time.

Please, lets be reasonable here. You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency between the extradition process based on international agreements, and the North Koreans black-bagging someone.

If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country

The DMCA was the US implementation of two international treaties.

" You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency between the extradition process based on international agreements, and the North Koreans black-bagging someone."

I'm sure those kidnapped will be glad to hear this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

Not really a new or particularly controversial legal construct. The host country can refuse to extradite if they disagree with the charges.

"So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks?"

If there are extradition agreements, sure.

The US had jurisdiction since MU rented about 500 (?) servers in Virginia. If all of their servers were outside the US, they couldn't have done much about it.

I don't think that's true. If we are talking about SOPA here, it wouldn't matter where the servers were. They were using a US based TLD MegaUpload.com and therefore their domain could be "erased". If they didn't have a domain address, then they could look at where the servers were.

Meaning: If they were MegaUpload.ch, they would have needed to SOPA to take the domain down. But they still would not have been able to seize the servers and arrest the operators.

tl;dr: Relating this to SOPA is a bit of a stretch.

> I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested.

If the allegations in the indictment are true, then MegaUpload was likely violating the law in those countries to.

Contrary to widespread belief, the US is not the only country with copyright laws that criminalize commercial piracy.

This isnt entirely true. In the case of megaupload, I am pretty sure I read they had servers seized in the Netherlands and most [all?] of the arrests were done in foreign countries.

Further, I know it was definitely not the case with the online pokersites [PokerStars, FullTilt, and UltimateBet/Absolute] being shut down in April. AFAIK, ICANN is based in the US and oversees .com [among other] address. Because of this, with a court order, the US gov't can seize a domain name, with or without SOPA and they have already done this with online poker sites that have no physical presence in the United States.

Megaupload is in the same spot as those sites; they violated US law, a case was filed against them, and the US gov't seized their domain, servers, etc. Due process was followed. It is a little far-reaching the the US can so easily seize .com domains, and that is why you now will see very few online poker sites that serve the US use a .com [instead they use .eu or .ag, primarily]. If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are. Whether or not they should be able to do that so easily is another question.

"""If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are."""

Do you really mean that as broadly as it's written? Shouldn't it be "If a company break US laws on US soil, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are." while the Internet has made the world smaller, nations are still sovereign and should be treated as such. Frankly, I'm really tired of my government feeling like it has to police the world.

I dont mean it 100% literally and dont really write my posts to be semantically perfect and IANAL, so I hope they arent interpreted to be anything more than they are. The hard part is defining "on US soil," because with the internet companies have a much further reach than just their home base.

For the poker sites, they do not [and did not] have a physical presence in the US, but still involve US citizens in their business and it was argued that US banks were involved in money laundering and other crimes that took place "on US soil." So it is pretty similar to the megaupload case; if you dance around the word of the law and profit from US customers, the US gov't will likely pursue you if you are a big enough target

But the US did not order anyone to be arrested abroad or extradite anyone did they? They arrested one of the developers when he deplaned in Las Vegas.

These cases are not all the same. Different criminal laws are being violated, by people in different places, involving different US-based businesses.

Megaupload used servers in the USA at Carpathia Hosting. That makes them subject to US law. SOPA/PIPA was for foreign sites that have no servers in the USA.

So all I have to do to be exempt from SOPA/PIPA is to host a single server in the US?

If you host server in the US, you are not a foreign website. You are a local one. In that situation, a SOPA/PIPA makes little difference. They can shut you down easily with existing laws. Do you understand?

Won't SOPA takedowns be easier to initiate and faster to implement?

Yeah, they'll take you down first and investigate afterward.

If you host server in the US, you are not a foreign website.

You left out an article there which is significant in this case "a server" or "the server".

If I were a "rogue website", could I host 99 servers in Bananastan and 1 server in the US and gain the benefits of complete SOPA exemption without significant risk to my availability?

I don't really know that this is worth discussing that much now that this particular flavor (SOPA) is off the table. But it may come up again just what the working definition of a "foreign website" is for any given set of considerations.

Usually just accepting payment from someone in the US is enough to bring US laws into it.

A "SOPA exemption" isn't going to protect you if you are hosting in the US. You need a DMCA exemption. And if you're reaching audiences the size of YouTube's or Megaupload's, Vivendi will see you in court.

If you have no US-based servers, and if Bananastan has no treaty cooperation with the US on IP infringement and extradition, then shutting you down is not so easy for Vivendi (FBI/DOJ) to accomplish.

For that they need more than what they have now (DMCA) to work with.

I like how they quote Hacker News user Kermit the Hermit.

Did youtube founders ever get arrested?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com