[victork2]

Even if I don't trust the justice system in the US I really hope that the FBI will fail their investigation and will have wasted a ton on money on this. Even better that they are found convicted of wrongfully use of power or something approaching that.

(I never said that Megaupload is innocent though, but I like well followed procedures, they are the guardians of our liberties)

[scott_s]

The sentiment that due process was not followed has come up multiple times. Is that what you mean by "well followed procedures"? If so, how did they violate due process? I am unaware of any way that they did. (Note that I am using "due process" to mean "due process as dictated by law" not "what I think is fair" or "the way I think things should be.")

This article is really about the merits of the case, which is separate from the question of following due process upon arrest and indictment.

[victork2]

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous.

But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way these copyright infringement cases are conducted. I am not american and I would hate to see the FBI take away my startup business on the ground that I am violating copyrights because of my users.

[Xurinos]

I realize that you can lose your business if your equipment is confiscated and so forth, but isn't this akin to a temporary injunction? These stop a suspected-within-reason on-going crime and do not require a full trial to be placed. I don't know how long a temporary injunction lasts or what is considered reasonable, but every time I see the argument about shutting down the business, I am reminded of the temporary remedy. Perhaps it is abused in this case. IANAL and have little idea of what I am talking about, so please correct me on the legality here if you know better.

[dmbass]

IANAL, but isn't this situation equivalent to a drug ring bust?

[vidarh]

That they're being compared to a drug ring is rather unsettling, even if we assume that all the prosecutions claims are true.

The ongoing damage here, if any, is only economical and a much more narrowly construed seizure could still largely prevent further damage while safeguarding their legitimate customers.

[dmbass]

The analogous party here might be the money laundering business that gets shut down for the duration of the trial.

[ryusage]

It seems similar, but one significant difference is that, in a drug bust, it's pretty cut and dry as to whether the targets are doing something illegal. The mere presence of drugs automatically makes it so. That's not really the case here. A judge could very well determine that Megaupload never broke any laws.

[dmbass]

in a drug bust, it's pretty cut and dry as to whether the targets are doing something illegal

That's way too subjective for law. The prosecution has to prove to the jury (NOT the judge) that what they found is, in a criminal case, beyond a reasonable doubt, an illegal substance.

[comicjk]

Not exactly difficult. A chemist with a mass spec could prove it in 5 minutes. Proving willful noncompliance with the dmca is a whole different league of problem.

[lukeschlather]

That is my thinking. However, I think the proper analogy would be a drug bust where one of the drug ring's warehouses' lease was up. Now, the government is perfectly within its rights to go through the warehouse and log and dispose of any illicit drugs found, but I don't think the government is allowed to do a wholesale liquidation of all the materials found in the warehouse. The materials should be held in escrow until the end of the trial.

[adgar]

So you're saying that the FBI should be allowed to arrest a business's operators and seize equipment that they believe are violating the law... but leave the business (which they believe is illegal) to keep running somehow?

The FBI will attempt to prove that MegaUpload was an illegal business. Why should they just let it keep running if that is the case?

[radu_floricica]

If your business is destroyed the moment they seize the servers, then you've already been "judged". I'm not a law expert, but I'm pretty sure a big part of modern judicial system is that you have separate people investigating and giving the verdict. Right now the FBI, for the business itself, was judge, jury and executioner.

You can call technicalities and process and mandates and whatever, but the facts stand: Megaupload is dead, and there was absolutely no trace of a fair trial.

[plorkyeran]

Why should the FBI be able to shut down a company without proving that the company is illegal first?

[trotsky]

While you may not think much of the distinction, it wasn't the FBI that decided to shut them down - it was the judge that decided there was probable cause and thus signed the seizure warrants. So the judicial branch made the decision - this is the same branch that can imprison you before you're found guilty if they believe you're dangerous or a flight risk.

If you allowed all organizations to continue to operate until they were proven to be breaking the law you'd have something very closely resembling anarchy. Imagine if ever pump and dump boiler room operation had 1-3 years advanced notice before being subject to asset seizures.

[josefresco]

I think the reasoning the feds use is it prevents the suspect from destroying evidence, and/or stops the activity from continuing to 'harm' the public.

[vidarh]

But then they better have damn solid evidence first that the additional time period the company is left operating will be instrumental in increasing the damage done sufficiently to make significant difference. In this case Megaupload have been operating for years.

IF they're found guilty, the additional time of operating in a situation where everyone who might want to use them to pirate knows they're under significant government scrutiny is not likely to make the damage done all that much greater.

As for destroying evidence, in this case the feds are happy to let the hosting companies destroy data - they've apparently warned Megaupload that lots of user data will get deleted by the hosting companies soon for failure to pay, because Megaupload's assets were seizes so they can't pay...

So not only are they not allowing the files to stay online, they're preventing Megaupload from ensuring they can retain copies of customer data in the event they're found not guilty.

Regardless of whether or not they're found guilty, this way of acting is downright disgusting.

[joering2]

My gut tells me so much money went into this multi-national synchronized operation that no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go. at least they will have to break even.

[jordan0day]

I don't know, I think there have been some high-profile cases where a lot of time and money was spent by the government, but the result was either no conviction, or a conviction of a much lesser charge.

Now, since as you say, this was a large multi-national operation, I don't know if all those charged will be extradited to the USA, or if they'll be tried in other countries. I really have no idea about laws & procedures around the globe, but if they are extradited to the USA, I wouldn't count the MegaUpload folks out just yet. It's probably very dependent on how much of their assets are frozen, which will affect how much of their money they can spend on legal representation. (I say unfortunately, because it seems to me that in an ideal justice system, everyone should have the same level [high!] of representation, rather than some being able to "buy" better lawyers).

[bostonpete]

So capitalism is good except when it comes to lawyers...?

[saucetenuto]

Yeah, pretty much. One of the essential principles of Western democracy is that everyone should be equal under the law, that what is a crime for a peasant should also be a crime for a noble. If you can use money to purchase better legal outcomes (through e.g. better legal representation), that principle is undermined.

[jordan0day]

Basically what saucetenuto said.

In the USA at least, much of our government could function nearly the same regardless of if our market system is completely laissez-faire capitalism, or hardcore communist. In fact, you could argue that government and its' systems, like the judicial system should be completely devoid of any possibility for profit motives. Since, as saucetenuto states, those undermine the system.

Now, I don't want to get into an argument about whether good lawyers deserve to get paid better than bad lawyers, etc. But I don't think I'd want to meet the person who sees the justice inequality between rich and poor defendants and thinks "All is as it should be."

[scott_s]

What do you mean by "no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go"? Do you mean that no judge would dismiss the charges before trial? I agree that is unlikely, but it's a rare thing for a judge to do that.

But outside of that, it's not up to the judge. It's a criminal case, and they will be tried by a jury. If they're convicted, the judge will determine their sentence. But it's not up to the judge to determine their guilt. (Unless the defendants forgo a jury trial and elect for a trial by judge, but I doubt they will.)

[ovi256]

So as long as enough money is spent, it doesn't matter if it's wrong ? Yay.

[phillmv]

Not really, the same with any organization - if the people who made the decisions lose face, they will double down before sunk costs.

The comparison in this case might have the prosecutor go after some lesser charge just to stick anything in order to justify the huge operation in the first place.

[dodedo]

This is precisely why there is a separation between the executive and judicial branches of government. Unfortunately I do agree they're not as separate as we might wish.