4 ms·

They should be found guilty in a court of law before the site is taken down... Not before. Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of a great and lawful

by maeon3 15y ago

They should be found guilty in a court of law before the site is taken down... Not before. Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of a great and lawful nation. Let the due process begin. Luckily they didn't screw up the global dns to pull this stunt.

sabret00the 15y ago
Yeah but if they done that, they'd lose. The MU laywers would simply prove that the site adheres to DMCA take-down requests and thus do everything they're required to do by law.
- nessus42 15y ago
  The government seems to have a whole slew of charges lined up against MU, so they'd likely be able to get MU on one technicality or another. I'm guessing, however, that they're aiming to prove that MU encouraged copyright violation. I.e., intent is a very important part of the law.
ajross 15y ago
You're not interpreting the constitution correctly. People have the right to due process, and are presumed innocent of their crimes such that they cannot be punished for them without a guilty verdict. Web sites (like other property) do not. They are things, and often evidence, and they can (subject to the fourth amendment requirement for a warrant) be seized in the course of an investigation.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  This is at odds with "corporations are people". Also, IIRC /People/ were arrested, not just websites.
  - Erwin 15y ago
    If a factory was illegally dumping poisonous material into a river, would you require a prolonged case against their executions to succeed before stopping the criminal behaviour? Why would a website which allegedly engages criminal behaviour be treated differently? You don't have to search very long to find direct megaupload links containing rips of Hollywood movies or AAA computer games.
    - true_religion 15y ago
      It doesn't matter if it was a corporation, actions can be prevented from occurring via injunction even when the actor is an independent person. Example: gag orders in slander cases.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Of course people were arrested. And they cannot be held for more than 24 hours without charges filed and a bail hearing. After which (presuming they are granted bail, which for this crime they will be) they go free until they are found guilty by a court of law. And I don't follow the corporate personhood argument. A web site isn't a "corporation", it's just property. It can be seized whether or not its owner is a human being.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Of course people were arrested. And they cannot be held for more than 24 hours without charges filed and a bail hearing. After which (presuming they are granted bail, which for this crime they will be) they go free until they are found guilty by a court of law. And I don't follow the corporate personhood argument. A web site isn't a "corporation", it's just property. It can be seized whether or not its owner is a human being.

by maeon3 15y ago

sabret00the 15y ago

Yeah but if they done that, they'd lose. The MU laywers would simply prove that the site adheres to DMCA take-down requests and thus do everything they're required to do by law.

nessus42 15y ago
The government seems to have a whole slew of charges lined up against MU, so they'd likely be able to get MU on one technicality or another. I'm guessing, however, that they're aiming to prove that MU encouraged copyright violation. I.e., intent is a very important part of the law.

ajross 15y ago

You're not interpreting the constitution correctly. People have the right to due process, and are presumed innocent of their crimes such that they cannot be punished for them without a guilty verdict. Web sites (like other property) do not. They are things, and often evidence, and they can (subject to the fourth amendment requirement for a warrant) be seized in the course of an investigation.

seanp2k2 15y ago
This is at odds with "corporations are people". Also, IIRC /People/ were arrested, not just websites.
- Erwin 15y ago
  If a factory was illegally dumping poisonous material into a river, would you require a prolonged case against their executions to succeed before stopping the criminal behaviour? Why would a website which allegedly engages criminal behaviour be treated differently? You don't have to search very long to find direct megaupload links containing rips of Hollywood movies or AAA computer games.
  - true_religion 15y ago
    It doesn't matter if it was a corporation, actions can be prevented from occurring via injunction even when the actor is an independent person. Example: gag orders in slander cases.
- ajross 15y ago
  Of course people were arrested. And they cannot be held for more than 24 hours without charges filed and a bail hearing. After which (presuming they are granted bail, which for this crime they will be) they go free until they are found guilty by a court of law. And I don't follow the corporate personhood argument. A web site isn't a "corporation", it's just property. It can be seized whether or not its owner is a human being.
- ajross 15y ago
  Of course people were arrested. And they cannot be held for more than 24 hours without charges filed and a bail hearing. After which (presuming they are granted bail, which for this crime they will be) they go free until they are found guilty by a court of law. And I don't follow the corporate personhood argument. A web site isn't a "corporation", it's just property. It can be seized whether or not its owner is a human being.