[dsthysd]

-Megaupload never got to state their case

-There was no trial (and probably will not matter because their site has already lost all its traffic and revenue)

-It is not a US based site

-The majority of its traffic did not come from the US

-There is not much evidence that that they were doing anything illegal by US law. They had a system in place (such as youtube) to remove copyright infringing content if found.

The fact that the majority of their traffic came from pirated content (I am just assuming, no facts) is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that if the media companies put as much effort into reporting copyright violating content on Megaupload as they do on youtube, it would have none.

[pyre]

  > -Megaupload never got to state their case

That usually happens at the trial. This is like saying that my life was disrupted when the police arrested me, because I should have had a chance to state my case before being arrested and indicted.

  > -There was no trial (and probably will not matter
  > because their site has already lost all its traffic
  > and revenue)

The site was taken down because the servers were confiscated as part of a pending trial. I don't understand the 'no trial' business.

  > -It is not a US based site

They had servers in the US, which established a US presence, and they are accused of massive copyright infringements against US companies who have all/most of their copyrights based in the US.

  > -The majority of its traffic did not come from the US

Do you have numbers to back this up?

  > -There is not much evidence that that they were doing
  > anything illegal by US law. They had a system in place
  > (such as youtube) to remove copyright infringing
  > content if found.

The government plans to prosecute the employees and send them to jail. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be attempting this if they had little to no evidence. Not that I believe that the US government are saints, but they usually don't bring cases that have little chance of winning. The evidence will out itself at trial. Have you read any of the requisite legal documentation on this?

  > I am pretty sure that if the media companies put as
  > much effort into reporting copyright violating content
  > on Megaupload as they do on youtube, it would have none.

If you read the court filings, you would have realized that MegaUpload limited the number of filings allow per day. The content companies were hitting that limit and requesting that it be increased/removed. If there are a million infringing files and you only get to take down 2500/day, it's going to take awhile, no? Especially considering that the number of infringing files/links would not be static.

The government is claiming that MegaUpload purposefully restricted the number of takedowns because they knew that they needed the infringing material to bolster their growth (and allowing all infringing files to be taken down would hurt them).

[victork2]

Hi Pyre,

I agree with your comment. However I would understand due process as process that seems to be fair and just, not something legal. Because if tomorrow the government says by law that part of the trial is to kill the culprit before the trial that would be legal in regards to the law but not in regards to the basic human principles. I know the example is extreme but I hope you see my point on the matter. In that case even before the trial the parties are punished and destroyed: no presence anymore on internet, no servers, no domain names. It certainly feels like somebody is punished even before the trial, no?

Also the fact that the FBI (FEDERAL) has power to seize or take things oversea is seriously worrying. I believe there are more urgent matters that needs to be taken care in the united States by the FBI before investigating that. This is a result of the PATRIOT Act. Great!

To sum up I believe that MegaUpload profit came massively from copyright infringement but even the worst killer should have his rights guaranteed.

[scott_s]

As pyre explains, it sounds like the federal government followed due process as it is laid out in federal law. Perhaps they didn't follow what you think is fair "due process," but that's a different matter.