I go out today and forge a $400 million dollar check from Paul Graham. I put it in at the bank and the teller, who's totally asleep at the wheel, cashes it for me. Now, the government wants to charge me with check fraud, since I signed the check and I'm obviously not Paul Graham. I want to use those $400 million dollars of Paul Graham's money to pay for my own legal defense. Would you say that, since the government hasn't proven that I've done something illegal until the end of the trial, that I should have the right to use all of the money I've stolen to pay for that defense? Or should that account be frozen for the duration of the trial so that, in the event that I am found guilty, the money could be returned to his account?
The second issue is that your example has absolutely nothing to do with the MegaUpload case. If you want to live in a country where the government has the right to seize all your assets and destroy your business without having to justify itself, I won't pretend to understand you, but I'll accept that it's your right. But I refuse to live in a world where that same government has the right to do so to everyone, including people it doesn't actually govern in countries where its laws do not apply.
Additionally, I never argued that the government has the right to seize all assets without justification. First, the government should only have the ability to freeze assets related to the case at hand. I should only lose access to the $400 million in question, not any of my other property. That $400 million should be kept safe, so that it may be returned to me at the end of the trial if I'm found not guilty (another place where the government is failing).
Additionally, I don't believe that the government should be able to do this without needing to explain itself. This should only occur if the government has been able to justify before a grand jury that there is reason to believe that I have committed a crime and that the loss of this money would aggravate the nature of the crime. For instance, in my check fraud hypothetical, the $400 million should be frozen, since my spending it would aggravate the crime. On the other hand, there's no reason for me to be held in prison, since the act is completed. Now, if I'm accused of attempted murder, it is logical that I should be prevented from going near the person I'm accused of trying to kill.
You'll argue that the grand juries are a joke and I'd say that you're right. They are broken and need to be fixed. However, once they are fixed, they should serve as a temporary, provisional guilty in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
Meanwhile Megaupload might have contributed indirectly to copyright infringement and some of their staff might have copied a file or two themselves. Big deal.
I'm more concerned about the legal system being abused than about something that should have been a civil lawsuit at most. I'm particularly concerned about how they've effectively tried hard to destroy a business before either the business or its principals have even had a chance to defend themselves in court.
Confiscating money; trying to get the data erased. They're acting as if Megaupload and its principals have already been convicted. Meanwhile the case is unravelling more, to the point where the US judged involved has openly questioned whether this will go to trial at all, especially given such "little" issues as whether or not they can even serve criminal charges on a non-US company. Small little issues that the prosecutor should have known very well would be an issue before the arrests and asset seizures.
I can be outraged over the case even while thinking Megaupload probably have engaged in quite sleazy and possibly illegal behaviour.
And a handgun is made to kill people. But we generally agree there's a limited context in which that is acceptable, so we allow it. If I want to store my files online, copywritten or not, there's nothing illegal about it.
If a file host is like a gun shop, then Megaupload was allegedly like an arms dealer.
And besides, the best analogy to digital lockers? Actual lockers. Their purpose is "hold stuff". If someone uses them for drugs, it's that person who is in trouble. And to presume the intent of the existence of lockers, even if one bus station does cater to gunmen, is silly.
We should all be able to look at lockers and say "there's nothing wrong with that."
The US gov't's actual allegations are not particularly exceptional. If you're of the mind to worry about this case, I think there are other things to worry about in this case.
Maybe you can think of something even more menacing to compare Megaupload with. Nuclear terrorists perhaps? Satan and his legion of demons?
Nice framing on ya pal.
Not saying that's what happened here (haven't read the court materials).
If a print shop in Los Angeles were to serve a high volume of student customers, and the print shop knew they were breaking the law by making copies of textbooks and selling them, the print shop would have a massive liability over its head. It would require proving that the print shop knew what the students were doing.
Exactly. It would require proving. The article is arguing that it did not happen
The world has gone utterly mad.
Compare this with how Apple sells iPods. iPods and pirated music go together very well, but Apple makes a real effort to get people to pay for music.
If I gave you a list of twenty things you can do and I state that you only need to do five of them, are you unethical for only doing five? Now add to that where I pay you money on the first five items but then you pay me money for every item completed after that. Are you unethical for only doing five?
You can say that their efforts at doing the bare minimum were making them money and I would respond that's more the reason to change the rules. A business exists to make money and will follow the rules as best as needed to keep making money. Whether the rules concern civil laws, criminal laws, and tax laws. You can see this throughout the business world, it's not a new concept.
You're exactly right about the popular opinion seeming to be that sharing copyrighted content is ok.
Were you, back in the day, suggesting BASF, or who ever, should be prosecuted for selling blank cassette tapes? Were they for illegal recordings, or just recordings?
Presumably too, since google can search specifically for torrents and offers a great way to store files, that it too should be shut down, founders arrested and servers seized?
What happens when encrypted RAIDed cloud sharing happens?
Yes they were criminals, but the response was way out of proportion to the crime. Its like some cop is walking down the street, sees someone clearly speeding, and pulls out his gun and tries to shoot out the car's tires. Catching the criminal isn't worth the chance of someone accidentally ending up dead.
> Ok I get it, the US is trying to apply their laws onto the world and that is a big issue but this seems like the wrong case to get outraged over.
And what is it that you can do once they do the same for a not-so-wrong case(wrong is your phrasing; I don't think this is the case wrong case to get outraged over). The motives to circumvent the law and go after mega doesn't look altruistic to me. Since for them, it was never about right or wrong, how does your perceptions of morality even matter? You aren't the one making the calls, and the one making the calls aren't doing it because they thought mega business is evil.
> Megaupload was built for the purpose of hosting/sharing copyrighted files. You know it and I know it.
I would be happier in a world where a site for copyright infringement stays in business, compared to a world where a couple of lobbyists can circumvent the law to get what they want.