Judge Denies Megaupload's Motion to Dismiss

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Andy Chalk:
then serving a summons to that individual once he is extradited would be sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Andy Chalk:
then serving a summons to that individual once he is extradited

Andy Chalk:
once he is extradited

Andy Chalk:
once

Pfft, hahaha.

Good luck with that.

The chance of Dotcom being extradited is about 1 in a million billion at this point. The New Zealand courts have shown themselves about as willing to cooperate with the US government as Marneus Calgar is willing to cooperate with Abaddon the fucking Despoiler.

I don't know what in the flying fuck was going through the US governments head when it thought that breaking the law and going against direct orders of the New Zealand courts were smart fucking moves.

Oh wait, I guess I DO know what was going through it's head, it was probably something along the lines of:

American Gubmint:
Hurr, We're America, EVERYWHERE is our jurisdiction. We can do whatever we want

Nice going 'Merrica, but ya ain't winning this one

aba1:
I do agree people need to realize that illegally downloading is stealing no matter how you cut it.

Except for the part where it, you know, isn't.

It's copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement=/=Stealing

I don't like Dotcom BUT he has a point...

SonOfMethuselah:
I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll find laws like this most anywhere: there'd be a gaping hole in any legal system (like legal systems need more holes) otherwise. But what he was saying is that it would be like if someone handed him a stolen DVD, and he was charged with the theft itself, not the possession.

There's also the fact that if it can be proven within any sort of reasonable doubt that you didn't or couldn't have known that the DVD was stolen, the you would not be convicted of any crime.

"The Court acknowledges that the individual Defendants may never be extradited," the judge noted. "Be that as it may, the present motion is based on the argument that the government could never serve Megaupload. Because the alter ego analysis provides a means by which it may be possible to serve the Corporate defendant, it is appropriate to deny Defendant's motion without prejudice."

....

*brain explodes*

oh Law, I will never understand..

the doom cannon:
Do you people fail to understand that the reason that MU is in this shit is because of racketeering and money laundering? Piracy is just tacked onto the list because it can be, but it's just a secondary issue here

Gilhelmi:

Third topic - I can not wait for the day when the internet grows up and realizes that stealing is all the time, does not matter if you were not going to buy it anyway, or that the quality is poor. It would be like if I went too your house stole your car that you were selling saying "Look, your car is a piece of junk. I am not paying for it." Stupid, thieving, idiots.

No it's more like saying going to the car dealer and saying "I don't wanna pay your outrageously marked up prices, so I'm gonna stare at this car for a second, and make another one magically appear at my house. kthxbye" There is no stealing involved. It is copying, and thus if reproduced still violates copyright laws, but it's not stealing.

You are stealing money from the companies/artist who own it.

antipunt:
[quote]"The Court acknowledges that the individual Defendants may never be extradited," the judge noted. "Be that as it may, the present motion is based on the argument that the government could never serve Megaupload. Because the alter ego analysis provides a means by which it may be possible to serve the Corporate defendant, it is appropriate to deny Defendant's motion without prejudice."

To sum up what was said in that paragraph:

Megaupload was arguing a technicality that Megaupload does not possess a US address, and as such cannot be served legal summons. The judge pointed out that this enables criminals to dodge US law by never having addresses here, and that since Dotcom is the face of Megaupload, he might as well be the one served.

Of course, one could argue in response that US law doesn't extend to people in other countries, but this is dodging the issue. The issue at hand is that there aren't many international treaties about how to deal with international crimes on the internet, and what to do with the suspects/where to try them in court. As much as people like bitching about the US/bitching about how the takedown was wrong because piracy ain't wrong (depending on who is complaining) there aren't very good procedures for cases like this other than trying to appeal to the authorities in the countries hosting the suspects... and while that can sometimes result in satisfactory outcomes, other times countries won't be willing to cooperate for whatever reason (they don't view the behavior as a crime, they don't like the country who wants to bring a case, whatever). This encourages countries to act as unilaterally as possible, which results in stupid crap like this happening.

Countries really need to sit down and bang out some treaties regarding how they'll handle internet crime (intellectual property crimes in particular, since those are probably the vast majority of internet crimes).

Gilhelmi:

the doom cannon:
Do you people fail to understand that the reason that MU is in this shit is because of racketeering and money laundering? Piracy is just tacked onto the list because it can be, but it's just a secondary issue here

Gilhelmi:

Third topic - I can not wait for the day when the internet grows up and realizes that stealing is all the time, does not matter if you were not going to buy it anyway, or that the quality is poor. It would be like if I went too your house stole your car that you were selling saying "Look, your car is a piece of junk. I am not paying for it." Stupid, thieving, idiots.

No it's more like saying going to the car dealer and saying "I don't wanna pay your outrageously marked up prices, so I'm gonna stare at this car for a second, and make another one magically appear at my house. kthxbye" There is no stealing involved. It is copying, and thus if reproduced still violates copyright laws, but it's not stealing.

You are stealing money from the companies/artist who own it.

Stealing implies they are losing something that they already had.

It is no more stealing than buying a used copy of a game.

scotth266:

antipunt:
[quote]"The Court acknowledges that the individual Defendants may never be extradited," the judge noted. "Be that as it may, the present motion is based on the argument that the government could never serve Megaupload. Because the alter ego analysis provides a means by which it may be possible to serve the Corporate defendant, it is appropriate to deny Defendant's motion without prejudice."

To sum up what was said in that paragraph:

Megaupload was arguing a technicality that Megaupload does not possess a US address, and as such cannot be served legal summons. The judge pointed out that this enables criminals to dodge US law by never having addresses here, and that since Dotcom is the face of Megaupload, he might as well be the one served.

Of course, one could argue in response that US law doesn't extend to people in other countries, but this is dodging the issue. The issue at hand is that there aren't many international treaties about how to deal with international crimes on the internet, and what to do with the suspects/where to try them in court. As much as people like bitching about the US/bitching about how the takedown was wrong because piracy ain't wrong (depending on who is complaining) there aren't very good procedures for cases like this other than trying to appeal to the authorities in the countries hosting the suspects... and while that can sometimes result in satisfactory outcomes, other times countries won't be willing to cooperate for whatever reason (they don't view the behavior as a crime, they don't like the country who wants to bring a case, whatever). This encourages countries to act as unilaterally as possible, which results in stupid crap like this happening.

Countries really need to sit down and bang out some treaties regarding how they'll handle internet crime (intellectual property crimes in particular, since those are probably the vast majority of internet crimes).

ooo, nice analysis. thank you good sir

Gilhelmi:
snip

how so? I don't see any money. I see a lost sale, but a lost sale is not stolen money. again though, should I then turn around and sell said car, I would be committing a crime. copying is not stealing. I agree that piracy isn't great and that people should pay for services received, but I don't agree with the definition of stealing. It is not theft if the owner is still in possession of the original object.

the doom cannon:

Gilhelmi:
snip

how so? I don't see any money. I see a lost sale, but a lost sale is not stolen money. again though, should I then turn around and sell said car, I would be committing a crime. copying is not stealing. I agree that piracy isn't great and that people should pay for services received, but I don't agree with the definition of stealing. It is not theft if the owner is still in possession of the original object.

Yes it is. No its not. Yes it is. No its not.

OK, put your self in the position of the low budget Indy developer. Now imagine that your game is popular but not super popular, kind-of a cult classic. You just barly break even on this project, now you find out that half your player "Copied" it from someone else instead of paying for it. All my heart, sweat, and tears, but you were too f***ing cheap too buy it from me legally.

Even the bigger companies, they put out crap because its a safe bet. Most people are not thieves, but most people do not buy this or that small genre title. Assuming that the same percentage of people stealing across all types and genres of digital media. The companies are not going too gamble on smaller Indy stuff because it will not make much money because their profits are cut too much by thieves.

I really do tire of these silly "its not stealing because its only coping" debates. Copy the essay paper of the person next too you, the teacher will give you an 'F'. Most agree with that because coping is cheating. You are cheating companies out of their hard earned money.

Gilhelmi:
...

I really do tire of these silly "its not stealing because its only coping" debates. Copy the essay paper of the person next too you, the teacher will give you an 'F'. Most agree with that because coping is cheating. You are cheating companies out of their hard earned money.

To use your own argument: There is a difference in moral scope between copying someones test answers and receiving credit for their work as well, and erasing their name and writing in yours so they get a zero for not handing in the test. How big a difference there is is up to you, but you cant say there isn't one.

Dyspayr:

Gilhelmi:
...

I really do tire of these silly "its not stealing because its only coping" debates. Copy the essay paper of the person next too you, the teacher will give you an 'F'. Most agree with that because coping is cheating. You are cheating companies out of their hard earned money.

To use your own argument: There is a difference in moral scope between copying someones test answers and receiving credit for their work as well, and erasing their name and writing in yours so they get a zero for not handing in the test. How big a difference there is is up to you, but you cant say there isn't one.

Actually, most teacher I know would give both students an F. Giving the artist/company an F would be like not getting the money, in this case.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here