
DOJ tries to block return of data to MegaUpload user - iProject
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57450153-93/doj-tries-to-block-return-of-data-to-megaupload-user/?tag=mncol;editorPicks
======
freehunter
_It's worth nothing that the government, in its brief, wrote Goodwin has
another legal option to pursue if he believes his possessions weren't treated
fairly. "Mr. Goodwin," the government's lawyers wrote, "can sue MegaUpload or
Carpathia [Hosting, the company that hosted MegaUpload's servers] to recover
his losses."_

So he can sue MU, which has had all of its assets frozen and has no access to
the files (so no restitution can possibly occur), or sue Carpathia, where the
only obligation they could even remotely be under is to return the files,
except there's a court order telling them they cannot recover the files.

Carpathia is not responsible for the takedown. MU _might_ be responsible for
the takedown, but they have no available assets to award recovery to affected
users.

~~~
shmerl
What hypocrites. They don't want to return the data, don't want to be sued at
the same time, and even try to redirect the claim to those who can't return
it. Are they just dumb, or utterly cynical to the point of mocking the public?

~~~
pvnick
If recent events are any indication, I'd go with the second choice.

------
cletus
This whole Megaupload case leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

On the one hand, do I think Megaupload's founders were happy to turn a blind
eye to piracy? Probably. They may have even encouraged it. Given the current
(stupid) laws there is certainly a case to be made by the government. Still,
the case is far from clearcut [1].

That being said, the remedy sought by and received by the government is
disproportionate to the alleged offense.

One problem is that the DoJ injunction to both shutdown the service and
maintain the data is costing Megaupload and/or the ISP $9000/day to keep 25PB
of data around [2]. How much of that data was infringing exactly?

This is the part that leaves a bad taste in my mouth: the DoJ's remedy is
essentially punitive to the parties involved (for what is still an alleged
infringement) to the point that they simply want to bankrupt alleged
offenders. Whatever happened to due process?

All of this leads me to two conclusions:

1\. The Obama administration's track record on intellectual property is
horrendous, from staffing the DoJ with RIAA/MPAA stooges [3] to secretly
negotiating international treaties that treat copyright infringement with
similar severity as counterfeiting or terrorism [4] (the original ACTA; not
the one signed this year). This I think is so bad I think the administration
needs to go (not that I think the alternative is much better); and

2\. The US government is reinforcing the view that if you want to store data
in the cloud and you want it to remain there, store it outside of the US.

[1]:
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/00373617487/megaup...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/00373617487/megaupload-
details-raise-significant-concerns-about-what-doj-considers-evidence-criminal-
behavior.shtml)

[2]: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/isp-
storing-25-pe...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/isp-
storing-25-petabytes-of-megaupload-data-costs-us-9000-a-day/)

[3]:
[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/obamas_latest_pick_for_...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/obamas_latest_pick_for_doj_is_riaa_lawyer.php)

[4]: <http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html>

------
IvoDankolov
Was there really a need to put "legitimate" in quotes every single time?

More seriously, though, it shows that the legal system has put itself, perhaps
unwittingly, in unexplored and potentially very volatile territory.

Most times, a warrant does not affect at lot of people in the grand scheme of
things. Potentially inconveniencing an innocent household is, all things
considered, not a big deal. But a warrant that affects quite literally
millions of people, which cannot possible be all guilty - dangerous, that.

I wonder if this will force some changes in the way seizure of property is
handled. I suppose it depends on how much of a "shitstorm" it continues to
cause.

~~~
fl3tch
Yet another problem created by cloud storage. If instead of putting everything
on a community storage service we took Eben Moglen's suggestion of storing
everything in our homes (which would require better bandwidth and ISP AUPs, of
course) our data would be in the best legally protected place in society. It
won't happen. The cloud will win because it has bigger corporate backers, but
this is another example of how technology solves one problem while
simultaneously creating another.

~~~
Shivetya
Yet another example of a too powerful to care government agency which cares
nothing for the collateral damage it causes, nor does it have too.

To be blunt, they should be required to release within a timely manner all non
offending assets. They claim bad precedent which is more than annoying, its
insulting. In other words, as long as they get who they are after they could
care less who suffers in the process. Worse, those caught up in the crossfire
are not entitled to any assistance whatsoever.

So the moral of the story is, do not keep your data anywhere but on systems
you own. I wonder how much Apple and Google have to pay to keep the DOJ at
bay? I would assume it is whatever the cost of lawyers are whose entire job is
to convince the DOJ all things possible are always done.

~~~
squidpie
I agree that keeping your own data on your own property is a worthwhile
endeavor. I speculate though about how proficient most people are at keeping
truly decent security for that data. If I build a small server rack at home
and allow all of my mobile devices to connect to that server from out in the
wide world, and if then lots and lots of other people do that as well, how
does the nature of security change?

------
zacharycohn
Quote from article: "Twenty-three years ago, the Supreme Court made clear that
a criminal defendant does not have a right to use someone else's money to
finance his defense."

Is this implying that the guy who wants his videos back is a criminal
defendant?

~~~
gpvos
I assumed that "criminal defendant" referred to MU/DotCom, but then I find
myself unable to parse the sentence into something meaningful. Can anyone
explain please?

