

DOJ Didn't Need SOPA to Shutdown "rogue site" MegaUpload - bproper
http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/20/department-of-justice-doj-dept-of-justice-megaupload-piracy-sopa-pipa/

======
aqme28
They didn't need SOPA because they took the time and effort needed to get a
warrant.

The argument against SOPA is not that sites could be shut down, but that there
needs to be a very demonstrable reason for it--with warrants and evidence and
judges signatures. With SOPA, the site can be shut down based on accusation
alone, and THAT is the problem.

~~~
greenyoda
Well, to be precise, this site was indeed shut down based on accusation alone.
The operators of the site have been charged with criminal offenses, but until
they're actually convicted in a court of law, they're presumed by U.S. law to
be innocent. So what's the justification for shutting down the site before the
jury renders a verdict? And if the jury acquits them (we don't know how strong
the government's case really is, so it's certainly possible), will the
government compensate them for their lost earnings?

~~~
aplusbi
It was shutdown based on a warrant that was issued based on an accusation (and
probably at least some evidence), which makes all the difference.

~~~
greenyoda
The fact that a warrant and an indictment were issued doesn't mean that these
guys did anything wrong. Lots of people who are indicted are later acquitted.
The fact that there is evidence doesn't mean that there's enough evidence to
convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for conviction in
criminal cases) that a crime has been committed. The defendants have a right
to present their own evidence to the contrary.

The U.S. Constitution has all these nice phrases like "due process of law"
(see 5th Amendment), but they don't really mean anything if the government can
take your property away without your having been convicted by a jury in a fair
trial where you had adequate legal representation. Nothing terrible would
happen if the government were to leave the web site up until a jury convicted
these people.

If you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you want to have a chance to defend
yourself in court before you had your property taken away?

~~~
wisty
If you are accused of a crime, you are detained. You can get bail, but only if
you can convince the judge that you aren't likely to re-offend (or flee)
during the bail period.

It's the same basic principle.

The point is, there's stuff like formal charges, warrants, and so on which
have to be taken care of. The cops can't just impound your car because someone
said you were using it to ship stolen property - they need to get a warrant.

------
Jach
I don't think it's an outright error to relate this to SOPA. These latest sets
of laws (such as NDAA) seem to be more about legitimizing the recent actions
of the Executive Branch (Bradley Manning) than about giving them a
significantly larger amount of more power.

------
kermitthehermit
This further proves that laws against this exact kind of thing have to be
created, simply abolishing PIPA / SOPA is NOT by any means enough.

It's not OK to do this. This kind of thing has to stop.

~~~
tzs
> It's not OK to do this. This kind of thing has to stop.

What kind of thing? If even half the things in the indictment are true,
MegaUpload was designed and operated specifically to make money off of massive
copyright infringement.

~~~
greenyoda
It's up to a jury to decide whether the prosecution has proven its accusations
beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not up to the government or a judge or the
media or the readers of HN to decide this.

If the government alleged that your web site (lets assume you have one) was a
criminal enterprise designed specifically to make money off copyright
infringement, wouldn't you want them to have to prove their case to a jury
before shutting you down? If so, you should demand the same right of due
process for everyone else.

------
martincmartin
That's because it had servers in the U.S. SOPA is aimed at companies that keep
their ops outside the U.S.

~~~
bproper
I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand.
Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested.

So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all
these folks?

MegaUpload was cited a number of times during the Judiciary Committee Hearing.
But they mispoke more often than not.

~~~
lomegor
Yes, if they have operations in the US they can be prosecuted, I believe.
What's even worse for Megaupload in this case is that they had started legal
proceedings themselves in the US. If they can use the US law, they have to
abide them.

~~~
Iv
So if my operations based in another country infringe US laws, they can get me
and bring me there to be judged ? What do we call that when North Korea does
that again ? Kidnapping.

If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country, it will be an
interesting time.

~~~
cbs
Please, lets be reasonable here. You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency
between the extradition process based on international agreements, and the
North Koreans black-bagging someone.

 _If every website suddenly has to obey the laws of every country_

The DMCA was the US implementation of two international treaties.

~~~
burgerbrain
_" You're drawing a gigantic false equivalency between the extradition process
based on international agreements, and the North Koreans black-bagging
someone."_

I'm sure those kidnapped will be glad to hear this.

------
a9
Megaupload used servers in the USA at Carpathia Hosting. That makes them
subject to US law. SOPA/PIPA was for foreign sites that have no servers in the
USA.

~~~
marshray
So all I have to do to be exempt from SOPA/PIPA is to host a single server in
the US?

~~~
a9
If you host server in the US, you are not a foreign website. You are a local
one. In that situation, a SOPA/PIPA makes little difference. They can shut you
down easily with existing laws. Do you understand?

~~~
marshray
_If you host server in the US, you are not a foreign website._

You left out an article there which is significant in this case "a server" or
"the server".

If I were a "rogue website", could I host 99 servers in Bananastan and 1
server in the US and gain the benefits of complete SOPA exemption without
significant risk to my availability?

I don't really know that this is worth discussing that much now that this
particular flavor (SOPA) is off the table. But it may come up again just what
the working definition of a "foreign website" is for any given set of
considerations.

Usually just accepting payment from someone in the US is enough to bring US
laws into it.

~~~
a9
A "SOPA exemption" isn't going to protect you if you are hosting in the US.
You need a DMCA exemption. And if you're reaching audiences the size of
YouTube's or Megaupload's, Vivendi will see you in court.

If you have no US-based servers, and if Bananastan has no treaty cooperation
with the US on IP infringement and extradition, then shutting you down is not
so easy for Vivendi (FBI/DOJ) to accomplish.

For that they need more than what they have now (DMCA) to work with.

------
joejohnson
I like how they quote Hacker News user Kermit the Hermit.

------
gcb
Did youtube founders ever get arrested?

