4 ms·

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 f

by Zirro 15y ago

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.

geoffw8 15y ago
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?
- mokus 15y ago
  "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_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...
  - geoffw8 15y ago
    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_United_States#Certain_contracts_with_the_government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...
    - mokus 15y ago
      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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by Zirro 15y ago

geoffw8 15y ago

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?

mokus 15y ago
"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_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...
- geoffw8 15y ago
  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_United_States#Certain_contracts_with_the_government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...
  - mokus 15y ago
    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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]