"This really has very little bearing on the Megaupload case as a whole."
Not exactly true. It would allow Dotcom to have more funds for a proper defense. This sort of stuff shouldn't even happen before you actually get charged as guilty. This is why I never really liked the "OPEN Act" alternative to SOPA either. Sites shouldn't get their funds seized and cut off before they even get a chance to defend themselves.
Unless it may reflect an overall careless (or worse, abusive) attitude by the various prosecution teams. This is a tough case, involving many jurisdictions and different civil, criminal and process law and, worse of all, driven by economic pressure by companies that are being questioned on many levels for using law enforcement as thugs, as well as other shady business practices.
If they want to win this case, they'd better do all their homework flawlessly, dot all i's and cross all t's. If they don't, it will set a precedent that will frame future cases like this.
An error has been made and is now beeing admitted. A good sign for a working jurisdiction imo.
While companies may be questioned I much more question the ethics of this kim distributing copyrighted material without compensating the authors and then buying ferraris instead. Not a role model I'd like to prevail.
Unless you happen to know, factually, that he is guilty (and perhaps therefore a witness in the trial?) this is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't happen before a verdict has been handed down. Kim's personality has little to do with how the law should be applied.
I believe people disagree with him and downvoting has replaced discussion in many cases. You may downvote a comment that's plain wrong, but you shouldn't do it if someone else already countered the argument.
This is great news. Seizure laws are terrible. The ability of a government to destroy a business without due process should not be permitted (especially a foreign government). It's unfortunate that the ruling is based on a technicality.
I get what you're saying, but imagine that someone stole your TV, and the police found the guy, but they didn't get your TV back because the courts hadn't convicted the perpetrator yet. They should at least hold the assets in escrow until a resolution is reached, otherwise people could just spend / destroy the assets. Many courts will require a perpetrator to pay restitution in cases where a victim is financially harmed, but in this case there's nobody to pay back, just millions of dollars to blow before an inevitable conviction.
I think it's obvious they did it. They needed an interim restraining order but benefited from a foreign restraining order that caught the defendant by surprise. They then raise the issue to imply it was a mistake made in good faith before the defense team can assemble a different story.
In any case, the prosecution should never be allowed to benefit from a process blunder that harms the defendant's ability to defend himself. If it's allowed, all sort of abuses will be committed "in good faith" only to be later "corrected" by such a half-hearted apology.
unfortunately, not necessarily. I think they wouldnt care how high profile the case is. Even it its the mount everest case and it will be clear that X fucked up, knowing how the world of law enforcement works (cops dont tell on each other), there would be no consequences whatsoever. IF media would hung for too long on this issue, they may move X to a different position, temporarily, but rest assure it was definitely worth for cops to take a "risk".
Google couldnt find anything to prove this to me, but if its true then how the country can properly function (UK) if cops can do whethever the heck they want to as long as they get the "evidence" as a result. no idea.
Cops can't do whatever they like to get evidence. But evidence is not thrown out because the police used the wrong warrant or whatnot. Maybe the officer doing wrong would face disciplinary procedures (resulting in loss of pension and job) or maybe they'd face criminal trial.
Even being noticed by the prosecution, they should not benefit from the mistake. Raising this issue themselves is a nice way to apply the incompetence defense while benefiting from the initial abuse. If they are allowed to prevail, other future seizures may be done using the abusive mandate and later be "corrected".
If that's something that would come up anyway, it's smart to raise the issue themselves before the defense does it.