5 ms·

When will the US DoJ hire a decent PR firm? Again and again during these three years they've made cock-ups that push people (like myself) towards supporting Dot

by corin_ 12y ago

When will the US DoJ hire a decent PR firm? Again and again during these three years they've made cock-ups that push people (like myself) towards supporting Dotcom even if we don't particularly like the guy, and even if we think for the actual charges he's likely in the wrong. > In the forfeiture case, prosecutors will argue why Dotcom’s claim on the frozen assets should not be allowed—and therefore forfeited to the US government—under the "doctrine of fugitive disentitlement." That idea posits that if a defendant has fled the country to evade prosecution, then he or she cannot make a claim to the assets that the government wants to seize under civil forfeiture. Hooray, a loophole in the laws that might let them seize his assets: call him a fugitive! Even though he hasn't visited America one single time in his life. And even though he is still in the country where he calls home, and has done for more than a year before this case started. Maybe it's not the DoJ's fault, maybe Dotcom and his lawyers (and PR) are really, really good. But nearly every story in the past 3 years has made him look good and them look bad, which shouldn't be the case when you've got a government department charged with delivering justice against a guy with a track-record of being an asshole and breaking the law.

ObviousScience 12y ago
It doesn't help their case in my mind that they probably broke the law with the seizures they performed: I was using Megaupload to store backups and distribute files I legally owned, such a game maps or documents. During their raids, they seized the funds used to provision the servers, failed to preserve the data, went so far as to prevent efforts on the part of Megaupload to return the data to me, and failed to allow for any sort of process for me to claim it before the servers were destroyed. That data wasn't specifically targeted in a forfeiture action, nor was it specifically accused of being infringing. The US government simply destroyed my data as part of their raid against Megaupload without any concern for the fact I was engaged in legal business with them, and simply using them for remote storage. Nevermind that they induced a foreign government to illegally spy on one of their residents as part of a copyright enforcement action. That's just hideously ugly.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  I would be nice if there was a way to calculate the amount of financial damage the US government did to legitimate users of the Mega Upload Service. The US government should be held financially responsible for these. Plus you could consider the failure of the US governments preservation of Mega Uploads data as destruction of evidence. If the evidence is not present during the trial it didn't exist.
- longlivegnu 12y ago
  Many Americans do not care if the government breaks the law and I'm sure the lawyers will try to justify it in courts.
Symmetry 12y ago
I'm curious why think he's guilty of the charges against him. Now, he's obviously guilty of civil copyright violation and can probably be sued into bankruptcy. But criminal copyright infringement requires mens rea and internal company transcripts show that the people at MegaUpload thought that they were within the law on some technicalities. They weren't but a reasonable belief that they were means that this wasn't criminal copyright infringement.
- corin_ 12y ago
  Not only am I not a lawyer, I also don't know/remember many of the details of this case. And I said likely, not definitely, guilty in my opinion. Regarding mens rea, I imagine it's tougher to argue that you thought you were legal technically than to argue you had no idea you might be breaking the law? E.g. Someone who has never heard of magic mushrooms but find then growing and sells them has a better chance of not being convicted for selling illegal drugs than someone who knows and had researched the laws and thinks they have a technicality to allow them to sell? Of course that's assuming they were wrong about the technicality.
  - new299 12y ago
    Just, in case it's of interest, statements from Kim suggest that he was trying to comply with the DMCA. That all major studios has direct access to the platform to delete links. I personally find the issues unclear, as obviously to a degree as he suggests below, Youtube and other providers are in a similar position: "Well, of course everybody knows that the internet is being used for legitimate and illegitimate uses. I think every online service provider has the same challenges that we have. YouTube, Google, everybody is in the same boat. So what you need to understand here is that we provided the content owners with an opportunity to remove links that were infringing on their rights. So, not only did they have an online form where they could take down infringing links, they had direct delete access to our servers so they could access our system and remove any link that they would find anywhere on the internet without us being involved. They had full access and we’re talking about 180 partners, including every major movie studio, including Microsoft and all big content producers and they have used that system heavily and you need to understand that that system was not even something that was even required by the law. We provided that voluntarily and they have removed over 15 million links." From: http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-first-tv-interview-im-no-piracy-king-2012030118#ixzz3PH3S7eWO http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-firs...
brudgers 12y ago
They don't need a PR firm. The US public as whole puts up with the lack of due process. They don't have a choice. There are different rules for different persons. Uber and AirBnB are figuring out how to violate local laws. They are corporate persons and are not charged with conspiracy, racketeering or money laundering when spending the proceeds of illegal activities...even in the furtherance of such activity. Kim Dotcom is a natural person who has angered corporate persons. The full weight of the law must be used against him. That's how crowd control is maintained.

by corin_ 12y ago

ObviousScience 12y ago

It doesn't help their case in my mind that they probably broke the law with the seizures they performed: I was using Megaupload to store backups and distribute files I legally owned, such a game maps or documents. During their raids, they seized the funds used to provision the servers, failed to preserve the data, went so far as to prevent efforts on the part of Megaupload to return the data to me, and failed to allow for any sort of process for me to claim it before the servers were destroyed. That data wasn't specifically targeted in a forfeiture action, nor was it specifically accused of being infringing. The US government simply destroyed my data as part of their raid against Megaupload without any concern for the fact I was engaged in legal business with them, and simply using them for remote storage. Nevermind that they induced a foreign government to illegally spy on one of their residents as part of a copyright enforcement action. That's just hideously ugly.

Fuxy 12y ago
I would be nice if there was a way to calculate the amount of financial damage the US government did to legitimate users of the Mega Upload Service. The US government should be held financially responsible for these. Plus you could consider the failure of the US governments preservation of Mega Uploads data as destruction of evidence. If the evidence is not present during the trial it didn't exist.
longlivegnu 12y ago
Many Americans do not care if the government breaks the law and I'm sure the lawyers will try to justify it in courts.

Symmetry 12y ago

I'm curious why think he's guilty of the charges against him. Now, he's obviously guilty of civil copyright violation and can probably be sued into bankruptcy. But criminal copyright infringement requires mens rea and internal company transcripts show that the people at MegaUpload thought that they were within the law on some technicalities. They weren't but a reasonable belief that they were means that this wasn't criminal copyright infringement.

corin_ 12y ago
Not only am I not a lawyer, I also don't know/remember many of the details of this case. And I said likely, not definitely, guilty in my opinion. Regarding mens rea, I imagine it's tougher to argue that you thought you were legal technically than to argue you had no idea you might be breaking the law? E.g. Someone who has never heard of magic mushrooms but find then growing and sells them has a better chance of not being convicted for selling illegal drugs than someone who knows and had researched the laws and thinks they have a technicality to allow them to sell? Of course that's assuming they were wrong about the technicality.
- new299 12y ago
  Just, in case it's of interest, statements from Kim suggest that he was trying to comply with the DMCA. That all major studios has direct access to the platform to delete links. I personally find the issues unclear, as obviously to a degree as he suggests below, Youtube and other providers are in a similar position: "Well, of course everybody knows that the internet is being used for legitimate and illegitimate uses. I think every online service provider has the same challenges that we have. YouTube, Google, everybody is in the same boat. So what you need to understand here is that we provided the content owners with an opportunity to remove links that were infringing on their rights. So, not only did they have an online form where they could take down infringing links, they had direct delete access to our servers so they could access our system and remove any link that they would find anywhere on the internet without us being involved. They had full access and we’re talking about 180 partners, including every major movie studio, including Microsoft and all big content producers and they have used that system heavily and you need to understand that that system was not even something that was even required by the law. We provided that voluntarily and they have removed over 15 million links." From: http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-first-tv-interview-im-no-piracy-king-2012030118#ixzz3PH3S7eWO http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-firs...

brudgers 12y ago

They don't need a PR firm. The US public as whole puts up with the lack of due process. They don't have a choice. There are different rules for different persons. Uber and AirBnB are figuring out how to violate local laws. They are corporate persons and are not charged with conspiracy, racketeering or money laundering when spending the proceeds of illegal activities...even in the furtherance of such activity. Kim Dotcom is a natural person who has angered corporate persons. The full weight of the law must be used against him. That's how crowd control is maintained.