Hacker News Reader

Comment by parfe | Hacker News Reader

No surprise about the weakness of the charges. The goal has already been accomplished. Megaupload has been destroyed without a single valid argument being upheld.

View on HN

Don't forget they've also tried to prevent his ability to defend himself by seizing every bit of property and/or assets they could get their hands on. Kind of hard to defend yourself against a prosecutor that has an unlimited budget and you have no means to fund your defense.

Just to play devil's advocate, would you permit an accused pick pocket to use funds from stolen wallets to pay for his defense?

Guilty until proven innocent? Surely it is not unreasonable that if found guilty, the criminal would be required to produce that money or work to pay off debts.

Yes, due to presumption of innocence. Because they may not actually have acquired these funds from picking pockets after all.

Megaupload made money through premium accounts which "many" were used for 100% legal purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people paid for the service, not the files.

> which "many" were used for 100% legal purposes.

How many? 1/10 of 1%?

If MU was legitimate, you can be sure these figures would not be hidden, and would be instead the #1 bulletin point of their defense. Instead, DotKim is now claiming a conspiracy theory.

MU made more profits than DropBox had revenue. Take away those accounts that signed up (tricked into) to download illegal content, and what do you have left?

Really, which? I have never come across a site using MegaUpload to host non-pirated content. Not one. single. time. I'd love to see some examples of this non-infringing usage. Surely you can find some via archive.org easily enough, if they're so common?

I've seen plenty. Mainly around gaming stuff like mods, or even smaller games where the developer released versions on MegaUpload or similar sites. The only specific examples I can think of off the top of my head are NSFW and I'd rather not link them here, but they definitely exist, and MegaUpload was always the easiest to use of the bunch.

FWIW, forum.xda-developers.com and phone modding forums like it often use cyberlocker services, usually for the same reason: you have a lot of folks who want a file, you don't want the forum software to have to deal with the traffic and you certainly don't want to have to email it to everyone who asks.

Cyberlocker services yes, but megaupload specically? When I've seen stuff like that used in actual communities it's been either stuff like dropbox links, MSN's one (SkyDrive, or LiveDrive, something like that?)

Never MegaUpload specifically.

He ran a legal business with a valid service. If they can't separate the money into legally acquired and illegally acquired, then in my opinion, they shouldn't freeze those assets.

Surely they should not be able to decide upon that question until after a trial.

Consider that your reasoning will also have to apply to old-school organized crime and their businesses that were fronts.

Well, they are just accused, so yes. If I was not a pickpocket however was accused of being one, I'd need to have the financial means to be able to defend myself.

Of course I would. Accused pick pocket is not a convicted pick pocket, so limiting his access to funds is immoral. Not sure about the legality, to me it absolutely should not be legal but I do not have enough knowledge to claim that it is.

To better illustrate the problem with your devil's advocate approach ask yourself the same question adding in the words in brackets: would you permit a person (wrongly) accused of being a pick pocket to use (his) funds (incorrectly assumed to come) from stolen wallets to pay for his defense?

Pre-trial seizure isn't un-precedented nor inherently evil.

The Feds freeze the assets of a fraudster, e.g. Bernie Madoff, when accused of a crime. They are not yet proven guilty, no, but there is a pragmaticism that underlies the decision to trade defendant rights for the public good.

Seems like that's an awful fine line. How is that different from the MPAA claiming that Megaupload is a fraud that has stolen money that belongs to them? How do you come up with a set of objective rules that can treat one accused fraudster different from another?

In the Madoff case his company was put under receivership, not seized: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-293-order.pdf And ownership wasn't transfered of anything: he was enjoyed from transferring or disposing of value.

The seizures are analogous.

Per the document linked to Madoff's estate was put under an "order freezing assets" [1]. Dotcom's property is described as being "seized and restrained" [2], not confiscated or forfeited.

[1] http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-293-order.pdf

[2] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5...

This raises the interesting question: What would happen if Megaupload actually managed to win in court? Would any part on the other side be responsible to pay for the damages caused to uptime and reputation?

Considering how profitable Megaupload was pre-takedown, we're talking enormous sums.

Yeah, I think the interesting thing here is the flip-side of them (Mega) not being a US entity in anyway. I read a while ago (no links I'm afraid) that essentially a US agency/regulator has to give permission for a US based entity to sue an agency like the FBI. I'd be very interested to see how it plays out for someone like Mega, or their web hosts if in fact they did win. There'd be no protection in place. They'd have to battle.

I'd be interested to know if any HN'ers have anything more solid to add?

"I read a while ago (no links I'm afraid) that essentially a US agency/regulator has to give permission for a US based entity to sue an agency like the FBI."

Is "sovereign immunity"[1] perhaps the concept you are referring to? It was mentioned in an HN comment thread a while ago, but I don't remember the exact context.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...

Ahh yes that indeed was what I was referring too. Interestingly it is in fact (if I'm reading this right) mentioned as being exempt: "certain claims of monetary damages against the United States are exempt from sovereign immunity" [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like the Tucker act only applies to cases where the government states or implies that it will pay something and then doesn't, so the government can't just breach contracts with impunity.

This tactic is not new, and has worked in the past. I'm thinking of a piracy crackdown about 20 years ago. Back then it was a network of dial-up bulletin boards, and people who would commit phone fraud to upload and download data, operating as couriers, in groups. The boards would often fun their hardware through credit card fraud, and many of them made money selling tapes full of pirated material. The crackdown involved raiding the boards, getting the user details, tracking their phone numbers, and getting various people raided in the various countries. A lot of the time the cases would collapse in court on various technicalities, but it would be a year before people would get their seized computer equipment back.

Entertainment companies are also taking the opportunity to sue: http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/23/valcom-sues-megaupload-for...

  > “These are revenues that belong to ValCom, and we’re
  > securing them for the benefit of the company and to
  > increase value for our shareholders,” ValCom president
  > Vince Vellardita said in a statement.

This is like an MBA madlibs statement, all he had to do was fill in the company name.

So this is pretty much extra-judiciary punishment, then ?

"Megaupload has been destroyed..."

I don't think it's destroyed at all. It is hurt, and hurt bad, but I think they could make a come back if he can get it back online after this disaster is over.

Defendants now get to decide whether charges are "weak"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com