Megaupload died today; totally not SOPA related

[Kael Valeran]

Like what?

We have a lot of information already... the charges, the prior history, some of the stuff they found during the raid, some of the stuff they found since... Honestly, claiming a "lack of transparency" here is more a sign that you're not doing the google work, or you just think investigators are lying. Are you honestly suggesting the investigators release every scrap of info they have to the public so we can make our own decision?!? The law is not a popularity contest.

Criminals getting caught always go around pretending that they did nothing wrong and they will fight it in the courts and show they are innocent. Kim is surely winning the sympathy card, but that does not say anything about his honesty, it says something about his PR.

It is one thing when the prosecution use the terms 'claim'. They did not specifically mention hard evidence. For example Kim has hard evidence

1) Spending on judicial advice, that will be reflected in receipts. None have come to contest this.
2) Taking of judicial advice, that will be documented by solicitors or lawyers. No lawyers have stepped to up claim that Kim had rejected their legal advice.
3) Providing access of files to right holders as they requested.
4) Not receiving any warning letters that his actions were inadequate.

These are hard facts, not something you can just make up. Moreover, none of the prosecution have made any contest to such claims.

The 'evidence' the prosecution have presented are largely 'out of context', a proof of intent rather than a proof of deed and causing commercial damage before enquiry.

1) The problem claimed here is not that they had hidden search tools for right holders, but rather they had a lack of search tools that was only available for internal use. That is a lack of feature, it could be a tool under testing/development, it could be anything. Why is there no elaboration on this?

2) There are some out of place evidence that are raised, for example payment of uploaders for popularity, pressure of download rate and deletion to users, top 100 list is not accurate, limitation of DMCA file removal tool, not using a hash system(used to police child porn files), use of 'odd' email names, money laundering claims. These are either taken out of context of copyright material or unreasonable, figure it yourself.

3) The only claim that holds some water is questionable itself, that is, the removal of link rather than file, thus allowing duplicate links. AFAIK if the published evidence are true, the tool allows the right holders removal of the file, and if a link were reported without using the tool, MU will only remove the link. Now, that is biting your own hand, because if MU removed all links to the same file, a link created by the authorized distributor would be removed. This can be used by distributors as private links, such that only with certain access, such as in a private forum, the private link would be shared through that service without public knowledge. Therefore, it is still not enough to proof anything.

There is also some shady activity going on...

http://blogs.computerworld.com/19651...royed_evidence

That is evidence right there. Don't destroy it until the trial ends. Do these people know what they are doing? If they do, then I worry, because they might be thinking that destroying evidence will tilt the case to their favour. I would be fine with it if its ignorance but they can't be that stupid to let this be used as a fighting point for Kim.

Instead of working with Kim, right holders have decided to attack him, and I don't think they are going to get far.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ingement.shtml

[Alaris]

(...)

1) If you google more, you'll find plenty of evidence. I'm too bored to keep digging this up for you given you're too lazy to read it.
2) Kim paid lawyers, but that does not mean that he acted legally. Maybe he paid them to help conceal his wrongdoings from the law. Kim wouldn't be the first CEO to ignore advice from paid employees.
3) One "claim" is that Kim failed to provide access, or rather he provided very limited access, much below what he was capable of. I don't see anyone debating this.
4) Your #4 is if we believe Kim, but imo that is likely false, i.e. made up by Kim.
5) The search tools quite clearly show lack of willingness to cooperate on the part of Kim. You won't see him talk about that.
6) Claims out of context are not the only evidence, they are rather supporting evidence. Extras if you will. The case would stand without all this extra stuff.
7) "Destroyed evidence" is not shady, of course Mega had legit users, nobody is debating this. But having legit users does not make the illegal stuff legal. Frankly, this has popular appeal but would not matter in court. Yes, I do mourn the loss of files of legal users, I wish they could have legalized Mega instead of destroying it.

The last point is valid though, that shutting down Mega won't stop piracy. But at least I'm happy if they do catch a criminal and put him behind bars.

[Kael Valeran]

1) If you google more, you'll find plenty of evidence. I'm too bored to keep digging this up for you given you're too lazy to read it.
2) Kim paid lawyers, but that does not mean that he acted legally. Maybe he paid them to help conceal his wrongdoings from the law. Kim wouldn't be the first CEO to ignore advice from paid employees.
3) One "claim" is that Kim failed to provide access, or rather he provided very limited access, much below what he was capable of. I don't see anyone debating this.
4) Your #4 is if we believe Kim, but imo that is likely false, i.e. made up by Kim.
5) The search tools quite clearly show lack of willingness to cooperate on the part of Kim. You won't see him talk about that.
6) Claims out of context are not the only evidence, they are rather supporting evidence. Extras if you will. The case would stand without all this extra stuff.
7) "Destroyed evidence" is not shady, of course Mega had legit users, nobody is debating this. But having legit users does not make the illegal stuff legal. Frankly, this has popular appeal but would not matter in court. Yes, I do mourn the loss of files of legal users, I wish they could have legalized Mega instead of destroying it.

The last point is valid though, that shutting down Mega won't stop piracy. But at least I'm happy if they do catch a criminal and put him behind bars.

1) Is that all you have to say?
2) He paid lawyers and he claimed to have followed their advice. That would put his lawyers in trouble. So far, none of his lawyers have stood up to provide counter evidence.
3) Kim's failure to provide access was due to a) limitation to number of files the right holders can remove in a day. That is not to stop them from informing him that they need to remove more files. b) not having a hash system c) when informed, he only removed links. a is necessary to prevent abuse. b is not necessary because not all commercial files are illegal, as opposed to child porn. c) he removed links only as the links could potentially be used by a legal distributor. This is a very very weak claim.
4) No comment, but why can't the hard evidence be revealed on the prosecution side. Kim has hard evidence.
5) The search tools are not available publicly either. If he did not released it publicly, perhaps it is under development.
6) That is the point, there is not enough hard evidence to make the claims out of context worthwhile to address.
7) Evidence is precious, and destruction of evidence before the end of a trial is shady. Yes, it can be destroyed, but that can wait, it is not in a hurry.

[Alaris]

Look, you're clearly ignoring whatever facts I am presenting, and repeating verbatim Kim's public defense. Does the words of a person with a criminal past hold more water than that of a justice system? Is there a point to debating this? Clearly you made up your mind that the prosecution is at fault here.

If Kim ends up convicted and given a sentence, you'll say he was framed all along and the judges were paid well. There is no place for debate here.

-----

We have to be careful that we don't let our own agenda taint our views, that we don't give free pass to criminals just because on the facade they support our views, and that we do hold accountable people for their actions not based on their charisma and popularity but based on facts.

I fully support fighting SOPA. But I don't think Kim is a victim of SOPA, rather, I believe he is a victim of his own wrongdoings. It's people like him that give weight to the argument that copyright laws are needed, the more of Kims we put behind bars, the less we'll need to worry about DRMs.

[Kael Valeran]

Look, you're clearly ignoring whatever facts I am presenting, and repeating verbatim Kim's public defense. Does the words of a person with a criminal past hold more water than that of a justice system? Is there a point to debating this? Clearly you made up your mind that the prosecution is at fault here.

If Kim ends up convicted and given a sentence, you'll say he was framed all along and the judges were paid well. There is no place for debate here.

-----

We have to be careful that we don't let our own agenda taint our views, that we don't give free pass to criminals just because on the facade they support our views, and that we do hold accountable people for their actions not based on their charisma and popularity but based on facts.

I fully support fighting SOPA. But I don't think Kim is a victim of SOPA, rather, I believe he is a victim of his own wrongdoings. It's people like him that give weight to the argument that copyright laws are needed, the more of Kims we put behind bars, the less we'll need to worry about DRMs.

Your 'facts' are claims, not evidence. I need evidence. For example, how did they come to that conclusion? The public deserves an explaination, and that is not very difficult is it?

I have no agenda. Clearly I am against piracy, but I am for transparency. We need a system without lies where we can know everything and scrutinise the details. Kim has given us more details than what the prosecutors have, that is why I come to my judgement. How will we know that Kim wasn't framed unless there is hard evidence? How and where the evidence is collected. What exactly is wrong here?

When that is made clear, people in the same industry(file sharing) can have a little breathing space. Isn't that what we are aiming for? A transparent and fair system?

[Giggles]

great news!

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...foreign-sites/

[Alaris]

I need evidence.

All you have offered is Kim's words.

So there we are. Kim's words vs the prosecutor's words. This is all we have to work with as internet trolls.

I agree with you, I sure hope that the prosecutors actually had hard evidence to get this going... but it is not in my hands to show you.

[Kael Valeran]

All you have offered is Kim's words.

So there we are. Kim's words vs the prosecutor's words. This is all we have to work with as internet trolls.

I agree with you, I sure hope that the prosecutors actually had hard evidence to get this going... but it is not in my hands to show you.

Kim's words are big claims that cannot exist without evidence. To make those claims, he must be able to substantiate it with hard evidence. For example, the existence of right holder access, consultation of judicial officers, taking the advice of judicial officers, amount of money spent on upgrading software and allowing third party access. If he fails to supply such evidence in court, obviously he will make a fool out of himself. The lack of warning letters(cease and desist) is really something that his prosecutors must admit to, which they probably won't, but I doubt they have made a claim that they had sent the letters either.

If he is unable to supply the evidence above in court, it would definitely be reported by journalists. That will be interesting... but unlikely.

The prosecutor claims are... just claims. Its more of a 'we believe and are investigating(and destroying evidence)' type of claim without show of hard evidence or intent to show such evidence. How am I supposed to trust them when they have not been transparent?

I also don't understand, why is he restricted from using the internet when on bail. -.- Seems a little bit harsh to me.

[Alaris]

Actually, Kim can say whatever he wants on interviews, he does not have to prove anything to give an interview. Whether any of this hold up to judge scrutiny is a different matter entirely. Even if he can't substantiate this in court, he's already earned a lot of public support. Then he does a few years in jail, comes out and uses the victim card, and nets another CEO job and starts all over again.

Meanwhile, prosecutors had (in theory) to give hard evidence to prosecute in the first place.

Internet restrictions are there imo to prevent him from covering his tracks and contacting associates for further wrongdoings. Remember, he has a history of running away from the law. Now that we should hold that against him, just saying.

[djacob]

great news!

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...foreign-sites/

Please say you're being sarcastic when you say that's great news. Ugggh, starting to think that America is worse than China in regards to allowing people their freedom on the net. Ok, I'm probably going waaaaay too far, China would close down sites from other countries too... if it could. Oh, and if it can, it probably has. Still, this doesn't seem like a good way to earn international respect. Thinking I should be voting against Obama atm. There were some things that I thought he was doing right, but not all that much and this clearly outweighs all of that imo.