[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.