4 ms·

If you read the actual press release and not the little WSJ blurb, then you'll see that DoJ's indicment said that MegaUpload actually did not comply with the DM

If you read the actual press release and not the little WSJ blurb, then you'll see that DoJ's indicment said that MegaUpload actually did not comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions and they did directly promote piracy. Of course, it's now up to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is true. As for the not US citizens, it's covered via the Berne Convention: The laws of the country where the copyright is registered applies. They probably spell out extradition, too.

gte910h 15y ago
>Of course, it's now up to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is true. Federal prosecutors have a 95 conviction rate for trials that go to jury. Almost everyone plea bargains.
- adestefan 15y ago
  When you have enough work to keep you busy all the time it's easy to pick out all the winners.
  - gte910h 15y ago
    Or, people do really believe when their government tells them a person is guilty.
    - adestefan 15y ago
      As someone who has sat on a Federal jury that is definitely not true. As a matter of fact there were people that were outright convinced against the government and were only swayed when it was shown to be a pretty solid open and shut case.
      - etherealG 15y ago
        thanks for this post, it helps to know from someone who's actually been in the situation. out of interest, are you at all involved in the law profession? how did they handle explaining complicated law language etc. to you as a juror?
        adestefan 15y ago
        I've been around enough lawyers to get the gist of what they're doing, but am not involved in the profession. A really good friend is a corporate lawyer and my mom was a courthouse clerk when I was a kid. The case was pretty clear cut; you can't carry a weapon as a convicted felon and once you cross state lines you fall under Federal jurisdiction. The guy was caught going from MD to DC and back to MD with two pistols during a police chase. He tossed one out the window while in DC and had the other one was on him when he finally wrecked his car just inside MD. The judge explained the law before we deliberated and also explained that his prior conviction had no bearing on him being guilty of this crime. Two people on the jury were convinced that he was just being made an example by the Feds. At the time there was pretty bad gun running between MD and DC and the local MD district attorney had a hard time getting gun convictions. BTW. Federal jury duty sucks. It's not a one day deal like it is for most county juries. Instead you're listed for an entire month. I had to go in 4 times before I was on a jury.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Almost everyone plea bargains. Yup, because the feds have amazing resources and the "law" is such that everyone is guilty of enough "crimes" to get 100 years. In other words, feds win a rigged game.
  - angersock 15y ago
    The system works! :)
  - mbreese 15y ago
    In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win. If you are Federally indicted, it's because they have more than enough evidence to convict. They don't like to lose cases, so they don't bring cases that are risky.
    - learc83 15y ago
      Exactly, our local District Attorney had a 100% conviction rate as DA because he handed off anything he wasn't positive he could win to his Assistant DAs. Also many times the Fed can pick and choose what they prosecute more so than local prosecutors. Many Federal cases are instead of or in addition to local prosecution, so they aren't always completely necessary because the defendant will likely get local jail time anyway.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win. That's not what I wrote. I wrote that they can convict anyone because they have vastly more resources and everyone commits several felonies/day, that is, is guilty. Are you claiming that being able to win because of extra resources is good or is it the "everyone is a criminal" part that you like?
      - mbreese 15y ago
        I know that's not what you wrote... because you said that the system was rigged. However, there is another (more likely) explanation - that the Federal prosecutors only bring cases to trial that they are likely to win. Out of the pool of possible cases that they could bring to trial, they only bring a fraction of those to trial. But the ones that they do bring are the ones that they feel they are more likely to win. The reason that they can win or settle so many of their cases isn't their extra resources (which can be vast). It's that they are selective in the cases they choose. This ends up being self-reinforcing too - the more cases that they settle, the more the reputation that they have a strong case, which increases the likelihood that the next case will settle. Their extra resources come into play when evaluating a single case, but when looking at the population of possible cases, it is their selectivity that skews the percentages in their favor.

gte910h 15y ago

>Of course, it's now up to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is true. Federal prosecutors have a 95 conviction rate for trials that go to jury. Almost everyone plea bargains.

adestefan 15y ago
When you have enough work to keep you busy all the time it's easy to pick out all the winners.
- gte910h 15y ago
  Or, people do really believe when their government tells them a person is guilty.
  - adestefan 15y ago
    As someone who has sat on a Federal jury that is definitely not true. As a matter of fact there were people that were outright convinced against the government and were only swayed when it was shown to be a pretty solid open and shut case.
    - etherealG 15y ago
      thanks for this post, it helps to know from someone who's actually been in the situation. out of interest, are you at all involved in the law profession? how did they handle explaining complicated law language etc. to you as a juror?
      - adestefan 15y ago
        I've been around enough lawyers to get the gist of what they're doing, but am not involved in the profession. A really good friend is a corporate lawyer and my mom was a courthouse clerk when I was a kid. The case was pretty clear cut; you can't carry a weapon as a convicted felon and once you cross state lines you fall under Federal jurisdiction. The guy was caught going from MD to DC and back to MD with two pistols during a police chase. He tossed one out the window while in DC and had the other one was on him when he finally wrecked his car just inside MD. The judge explained the law before we deliberated and also explained that his prior conviction had no bearing on him being guilty of this crime. Two people on the jury were convinced that he was just being made an example by the Feds. At the time there was pretty bad gun running between MD and DC and the local MD district attorney had a hard time getting gun convictions. BTW. Federal jury duty sucks. It's not a one day deal like it is for most county juries. Instead you're listed for an entire month. I had to go in 4 times before I was on a jury.
anamax 15y ago
> Almost everyone plea bargains. Yup, because the feds have amazing resources and the "law" is such that everyone is guilty of enough "crimes" to get 100 years. In other words, feds win a rigged game.
- angersock 15y ago
  The system works! :)
- mbreese 15y ago
  In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win. If you are Federally indicted, it's because they have more than enough evidence to convict. They don't like to lose cases, so they don't bring cases that are risky.
  - learc83 15y ago
    Exactly, our local District Attorney had a 100% conviction rate as DA because he handed off anything he wasn't positive he could win to his Assistant DAs. Also many times the Fed can pick and choose what they prosecute more so than local prosecutors. Many Federal cases are instead of or in addition to local prosecution, so they aren't always completely necessary because the defendant will likely get local jail time anyway.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win. That's not what I wrote. I wrote that they can convict anyone because they have vastly more resources and everyone commits several felonies/day, that is, is guilty. Are you claiming that being able to win because of extra resources is good or is it the "everyone is a criminal" part that you like?
    - mbreese 15y ago
      I know that's not what you wrote... because you said that the system was rigged. However, there is another (more likely) explanation - that the Federal prosecutors only bring cases to trial that they are likely to win. Out of the pool of possible cases that they could bring to trial, they only bring a fraction of those to trial. But the ones that they do bring are the ones that they feel they are more likely to win. The reason that they can win or settle so many of their cases isn't their extra resources (which can be vast). It's that they are selective in the cases they choose. This ends up being self-reinforcing too - the more cases that they settle, the more the reputation that they have a strong case, which increases the likelihood that the next case will settle. Their extra resources come into play when evaluating a single case, but when looking at the population of possible cases, it is their selectivity that skews the percentages in their favor.