4 ms·

Even if I don't trust the justice system in the US I really hope that the FBI will fail their investigation and will have wasted a ton on money on this. Even be

Even if I don't trust the justice system in the US I really hope that the FBI will fail their investigation and will have wasted a ton on money on this. Even better that they are found convicted of wrongfully use of power or something approaching that. (I never said that Megaupload is innocent though, but I like well followed procedures, they are the guardians of our liberties)

joering2 15y ago
My gut tells me so much money went into this multi-national synchronized operation that no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go. at least they will have to break even.
- ovi256 15y ago
  So as long as enough money is spent, it doesn't matter if it's wrong ? Yay.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    Not really, the same with any organization - if the people who made the decisions lose face, they will double down before sunk costs. The comparison in this case might have the prosecutor go after some lesser charge just to stick anything in order to justify the huge operation in the first place.
    - dodedo 15y ago
      This is precisely why there is a separation between the executive and judicial branches of government. Unfortunately I do agree they're not as separate as we might wish.
- jordan0day 15y ago
  I don't know, I think there have been some high-profile cases where a lot of time and money was spent by the government, but the result was either no conviction, or a conviction of a much lesser charge. Now, since as you say, this was a large multi-national operation, I don't know if all those charged will be extradited to the USA, or if they'll be tried in other countries. I really have no idea about laws & procedures around the globe, but if they are extradited to the USA, I wouldn't count the MegaUpload folks out just yet. It's probably very dependent on how much of their assets are frozen, which will affect how much of their money they can spend on legal representation. (I say unfortunately, because it seems to me that in an ideal justice system, everyone should have the same level [high!] of representation, rather than some being able to "buy" better lawyers).
  - bostonpete 15y ago
    So capitalism is good except when it comes to lawyers...?
    - saucetenuto 15y ago
      Yeah, pretty much. One of the essential principles of Western democracy is that everyone should be equal under the law, that what is a crime for a peasant should also be a crime for a noble. If you can use money to purchase better legal outcomes (through e.g. better legal representation), that principle is undermined.
    - jordan0day 15y ago
      Basically what saucetenuto said. In the USA at least, much of our government could function nearly the same regardless of if our market system is completely laissez-faire capitalism, or hardcore communist. In fact, you could argue that government and its' systems, like the judicial system should be completely devoid of any possibility for profit motives. Since, as saucetenuto states, those undermine the system. Now, I don't want to get into an argument about whether good lawyers deserve to get paid better than bad lawyers, etc. But I don't think I'd want to meet the person who sees the justice inequality between rich and poor defendants and thinks "All is as it should be."
- scott_s 15y ago
  What do you mean by "no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go"? Do you mean that no judge would dismiss the charges before trial? I agree that is unlikely, but it's a rare thing for a judge to do that. But outside of that, it's not up to the judge. It's a criminal case, and they will be tried by a jury. If they're convicted, the judge will determine their sentence. But it's not up to the judge to determine their guilt. (Unless the defendants forgo a jury trial and elect for a trial by judge, but I doubt they will.)
scott_s 15y ago
The sentiment that due process was not followed has come up multiple times. Is that what you mean by "well followed procedures"? If so, how did they violate due process? I am unaware of any way that they did. (Note that I am using "due process" to mean "due process as dictated by law" not "what I think is fair" or "the way I think things should be.") This article is really about the merits of the case, which is separate from the question of following due process upon arrest and indictment.
- victork2 15y ago
  Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way these copyright infringement cases are conducted. I am not american and I would hate to see the FBI take away my startup business on the ground that I am violating copyrights because of my users.
  - adgar 15y ago
    So you're saying that the FBI should be allowed to arrest a business's operators and seize equipment that they believe are violating the law... but leave the business (which they believe is illegal) to keep running somehow? The FBI will attempt to prove that MegaUpload was an illegal business. Why should they just let it keep running if that is the case?
    - plorkyeran 15y ago
      Why should the FBI be able to shut down a company without proving that the company is illegal first?
      - josefresco 15y ago
        I think the reasoning the feds use is it prevents the suspect from destroying evidence, and/or stops the activity from continuing to 'harm' the public.

joering2 15y ago

My gut tells me so much money went into this multi-national synchronized operation that no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go. at least they will have to break even.

ovi256 15y ago
So as long as enough money is spent, it doesn't matter if it's wrong ? Yay.
- phillmv 15y ago
  Not really, the same with any organization - if the people who made the decisions lose face, they will double down before sunk costs. The comparison in this case might have the prosecutor go after some lesser charge just to stick anything in order to justify the huge operation in the first place.
  - dodedo 15y ago
    This is precisely why there is a separation between the executive and judicial branches of government. Unfortunately I do agree they're not as separate as we might wish.
jordan0day 15y ago
I don't know, I think there have been some high-profile cases where a lot of time and money was spent by the government, but the result was either no conviction, or a conviction of a much lesser charge. Now, since as you say, this was a large multi-national operation, I don't know if all those charged will be extradited to the USA, or if they'll be tried in other countries. I really have no idea about laws & procedures around the globe, but if they are extradited to the USA, I wouldn't count the MegaUpload folks out just yet. It's probably very dependent on how much of their assets are frozen, which will affect how much of their money they can spend on legal representation. (I say unfortunately, because it seems to me that in an ideal justice system, everyone should have the same level [high!] of representation, rather than some being able to "buy" better lawyers).
- bostonpete 15y ago
  So capitalism is good except when it comes to lawyers...?
  - saucetenuto 15y ago
    Yeah, pretty much. One of the essential principles of Western democracy is that everyone should be equal under the law, that what is a crime for a peasant should also be a crime for a noble. If you can use money to purchase better legal outcomes (through e.g. better legal representation), that principle is undermined.
  - jordan0day 15y ago
    Basically what saucetenuto said. In the USA at least, much of our government could function nearly the same regardless of if our market system is completely laissez-faire capitalism, or hardcore communist. In fact, you could argue that government and its' systems, like the judicial system should be completely devoid of any possibility for profit motives. Since, as saucetenuto states, those undermine the system. Now, I don't want to get into an argument about whether good lawyers deserve to get paid better than bad lawyers, etc. But I don't think I'd want to meet the person who sees the justice inequality between rich and poor defendants and thinks "All is as it should be."
scott_s 15y ago
What do you mean by "no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go"? Do you mean that no judge would dismiss the charges before trial? I agree that is unlikely, but it's a rare thing for a judge to do that. But outside of that, it's not up to the judge. It's a criminal case, and they will be tried by a jury. If they're convicted, the judge will determine their sentence. But it's not up to the judge to determine their guilt. (Unless the defendants forgo a jury trial and elect for a trial by judge, but I doubt they will.)

scott_s 15y ago

The sentiment that due process was not followed has come up multiple times. Is that what you mean by "well followed procedures"? If so, how did they violate due process? I am unaware of any way that they did. (Note that I am using "due process" to mean "due process as dictated by law" not "what I think is fair" or "the way I think things should be.") This article is really about the merits of the case, which is separate from the question of following due process upon arrest and indictment.

victork2 15y ago
Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way these copyright infringement cases are conducted. I am not american and I would hate to see the FBI take away my startup business on the ground that I am violating copyrights because of my users.
- adgar 15y ago
  So you're saying that the FBI should be allowed to arrest a business's operators and seize equipment that they believe are violating the law... but leave the business (which they believe is illegal) to keep running somehow? The FBI will attempt to prove that MegaUpload was an illegal business. Why should they just let it keep running if that is the case?
  - plorkyeran 15y ago
    Why should the FBI be able to shut down a company without proving that the company is illegal first?
    - josefresco 15y ago
      I think the reasoning the feds use is it prevents the suspect from destroying evidence, and/or stops the activity from continuing to 'harm' the public.