back to article Millions face Megaupload data deletion by Thursday

US prosecutors have warned that Megaupload users could start losing the data they uploaded to the company as early as this Thursday. The US attorney's office had been granted search warrants for Megaupload data hosted on servers based in Virginia at Carpathia Hosting and Cogent Communications. In executing the warrants, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. GrumpyJoe
    Devil

    I'm gonna launch a satellite

    Containing my own server - that'll teach them (until they blow it up).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Indeed

      One important lesson that I've learnt from this is to ensure I don't have any servers in the US. This is a bit of a bitch since their bandwidth is cheap, but it's just too dangerous.

      Use a .uk domain since they maintain their own root servers (correct me If I'm wrong please!) and servers outside of the US.

      It probably wont stop the yanks but it should slow them down!

      AC to avoid deportation from America for calling them yanks.

  2. Yag
    FAIL

    Mmmh...

    "prosecutors copied selected data from the servers" + deletion of original data = Tampering all the way...

    Or, at least, the "selected data" will only include illegal data while all the legitimate one will be deleted.

    Nice one...

    1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

      *Allegedly* illegal. They need to prove it's actually illegal before they do anything else.

    2. LarsG

      THEY BRING A BUSINESS TO ITS KNEES...

      without any convictions. Now that IS justice.

      It's a back door way of censorship. Freeze the funds, take years to go through the 'evidence', until finally it gets to court.

      "The prosecution withdraws Your Honour, its a lack of evidence and its really just a civil matter actually."

      "What about my business, you have ruined me!"

      "we had sufficient evidence to look into it" said with smug smile.

      1. Decius

        Introversion won that argument and lawsuit after the FBI called Shadowrun books a "handbook for computer crime".

    3. redxine

      Correct me if I'm wrong but

      "Now that the lawyers have served the warrants and taken the data they wanted, they can't continue to search the servers and have handed control of them back to Carpathia and Cogent, they said in a letter to the court filed on Friday."

      Doesn't that mean the actual act of deleting the hosted content is in the hands of Carpathia and Cogent? The FBI has no obligation to stop the erasure since the warrants have been served... and if you seriously only have copies of your most precious memories hosted on a site with flash-based adverts galore and an all-you-can-execute malware buffet.... no. Just no.

  3. Mad Mike
    WTF?

    And people wonder why nobody trust them

    So, the prosecutors look over the servers, take what they want, and then allow everything to be deleted. This could, of course, include evidence the defence might find useful, but the prosecution certainly would not. This alone should render the court case null and void if it goes ahead. Effectively, the prosecution have allowed the destruction of evidence. Can't really see why they didn't grab the servers anyway. Seems most odd. But then, everything in this case is.

    The prosecutors seem to be doing everything in their power to bias this court case, but as they are from the USA, they'll probably get away with it. Once extradited, I expect waterboarding of the suspects to begin immediately. After all, the above shows the courts have no interest in allowing the defendants to defend themselves. Talk about a kangaroo court and summary justice.

    1. Turtle

      @Mad Mike: Link Please!

      Could you please give me a link to the article you are commenting on? Because, judging by what you have written in your comment, it could not possibly be the article at the top of this comment thread.

      1. Mad Mike
        FAIL

        It's quite simple really. By deciding what will be kept and what will be deleted, they are effectively preventing a fair trial. The prosecution is hardly likely to keep anything the defence could use!! If the website is the evidence (as in this case), the whole website, including content, must be kept for both the prosecution and defence to use. Allowing the prosecution to pick and choose what they want and then ensuring everything is deleted, the defence is hardly being given a fair chance.

        Mind you, the USA hardly want a fair trial. The media companies, through their intermediates have paid for the White House and the various departments of government to hang, draw and quarter some people to try and stop the pirating. They hardly want a small matter of evidence or a fair trial to stand in the way.

        This case is just like the way America runs any war. If you have a few terrorists in a building amongst a load of civilians, they simply carpet bomb the lot. That's exactly what's happening here. You've got some pirates alongside innocents and they're carpet bombing the lot. For those Americans listening........it didn't work in Vietnam, it hasn't worked in Iraq, it isn't working in Afghanistan and you're still the number 1 terrorist target in the world. Have you got the message yet?

        1. Tom 13

          @Mad Mike: Umm, no!

          The Prosecutors are not deciding anything, and in fact are following the law. They were issued search warrants for particular information. They seized the servers and used forensic programs to make copies of the data covered under the warrants. They are not legally permitted to keep data beyond what was specified in the warrants.

          The servers have now been returned to their owners, as is also required by law. What happens to the servers and the data on those servers is now entirely up to the company that owns the servers.

          Furthermore, they are required to provide any exculpatory data that is covered by those warrants to the defense attorneys. If they don't provide said data, they lose their case, which exactly what happened when over-zealous prosecutors failed to provide such exculpatory evidence to Senator Ted Sevens defense attorneys for his trial.

          1. Mad Mike
            Thumb Down

            @Tom13

            I think you'll find your wrong. They may be following the law, but I think you misunderstand warrants. A warrant details the MAXIMUM you MAY do. e.g. the data you MAY copy. I've capitalised the words deliberately as that's what your missing. You don't have to do the maximum. That is your choice, hence the may. Therefore, when they are selectively copying the data it does not necessarily mean ALL the data covered by the warrant. They may be doing this, but equally, they may only be copying selective data covered by the warrant. e.g. not ALL. If they are being selective, who says they're not copying data useful to the defence?

            Yes, the prosecution must give all exculpatory evidence to the defence, but they are not required to search for it. Therefore, there could be evidence for the defence covered by the warrants, but they are not obliged to search for it, not obliged to copy it and therefore not obliged to give it to the defence. You can look in various US legal texts for this, but Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on the rules of exculpatory evidence.

            So, all in all, if they don't copy everything and data is lost, there can be no fair trial as the defence cannot access all data it wishes to.

    2. Dave 15

      totally agree

      This whole case is a mess, the reason for bringing it has nothing to do with justice or fairness. Naked aggression against the rest of the world.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Why they didn't grab the servers?

      Maybe the servers only have a system disk and the back end data is stored on an enterprise disk array?

      If they have imaged the system disks and just left the rest of the data, that would give prosecution and defence the same logs etc. If, however, they've deleted innocent.log and kept guilty.log that wouldn't be so good. I tend to think that the people who are doing the IT forensic work probably know what they're doing. They tend to be 3rd party companies who wouldn't want to have bad press against their name by ballsing up such a prominent case by something so simple as allowing a mis-tiral by not collecting the correct data. Also bear in mind that the defence will have their IT forensics people who I've no doubt will flag up problems such as missing data if there are any.

      1. Tim Bates
        FAIL

        Re: Why they didn't grab the servers?

        I read the quotes as meaning they've taken a sampler of the data that USERS were STORING. I mean that, after all, is what they're basing this whole case on.

        Logs would be hardly relevant to such a case - a filename does not have to match it's content. For example, many photos posted on the web are called "IMG_<random number>.jpg" but that are not photos of numbers. And Youtube is filled with videos with amazing and unbelievable titles which all turn out to be Rick Astley promising to not give us up.

        1. Mad Mike

          @Tim Bates

          Yes, but that's the issue. If they take a sample, they're making the decision on what is a valid sample. For a trial to be fair, it has to be seen as above board and for the prosecution to make this decision instantly biases the case. The prosecution are not to know what the defence want and therefore can't make this decision.

          Whilst I don't defend the actions of anyone who pirates or helps pirate material, this all smacks of pirate justice. The sort when someone in an eyepatch makes you walk the plank simply because he says you're guilty. Maybe you are and maybe your not, but there doesn't seem to be any effort here to give these people a fair trial.

  4. GotThumbs
    Linux

    Waste of time....

    This is a waste of time and ONLY serves the lawyers and the media companies. Next they'll come knocking at your door for using your DVR or all the VHS tapes you made taping shows or movies broadcast over the air waives. The reality is...if your not going to buy a movie...then your not going to buy it. These downloads of pirated movies CANNOT be seen as lost income. The quality is typically poor and any movie enthusiast want's the best quality possible.

    The prices are still so high...I only buy used DVD's when I buy.

    1. Ben Tasker

      Somethings are worth paying for

      others aren't. I bought the 10th anniversary Red Dwarf boxset because I considered it worth the money.

      OTOH there's also plenty that I wouldn't buy. You're certainly going to get me to struggle if you ask me to name a film in the last few months I'd even consider buying at full price. Especially as I (rather naively) forked over £4 to rent the heap of shite that was 'bad bosses' (or was it horrible bosses?).

      Most films now I'll wait until they come on TV, if they are any good I may then look at buying (by which time they are cheaper). I certainly won't pay full price for a DVD without at least speaking to as many people who've seen it as I can. £20 is a lot to pay for something that may well become a shiny mat for my coffee mug

    2. Stuart Castle Silver badge

      Re: Waste of time.

      You do realise that because you are buying used DVDs, the film studios are still not seeing any money from you? At least not for DVDs. I have no idea how often you go to the cinema, if at all. They only see money from the people who pay those prices that "are still so high".

      As for your assertion that cannot be seen as lost income is actually inpossible to prove either way, because neither of us has access to a large enough sample set of downloaders to check.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Re: Waste of time

        You seem to be implying that no-one should buy anything second hand as the manufacturers lose out on a sale. So we all need to buy new, not second hand cars because Ford loses out. Or we should not use a taxi because Honda does not get a cut from the fare.

        If the 'new' cost was low enough people would have no incentive to buy second hand, so the manufacturer would be quids in. However, it only seems to be in the 'entertainment' business that the companies want to take a cut from every single transaction that involves their product. In the physical world this does not happen with cars, houses, clothes, bikes, etc, etc.

        1. Volker Hett

          Some people have to buy new, or there wouldn't be much used stuff to buy.

      2. bhtooefr

        Well, it does give money to someone who has bought DVDs in the past, and may be using that money to buy more DVDs.

        Also, by purchasing it, you're increasing demand on the used market, raising its prices, which means that the new market can charge more as well.

      3. steve 124

        exactly

        And as long as this type of thing is coming from Hollywood I won't buy anything they are peddling. They can maintain this anti-public campaign without my money (the last new DVD I bought was Office Space). I used to buy VHS tapes (even at the ridiculous prices they were in the 80s) but since DVDs came out at >30$ per movie I have boycotted anything Hollywood and will continue to spit of the greedy sob's. Whether it's ruining TV with reality television or deleting millions of legitimate customer's data so they can punish the "pirates" the entire industry has it completely wrong. Imagine if we had a room full of people and KNEW 80% of them were doing something illegal... then scooped up the entire lot of them and tossed them in jail... the MPAA/RIAA would be totally ok with that (judging by the actions they have been engaging in over the last few years). And I guess so is the law enforcement arm of the government at this point.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Nothing wrong with 2nd hand

        I buy them occasionally but it doesn't mean that is all I buy so the studios are still getting money. My price point for a new dvd is £4-7 depending on how good the film is. They usually drop to this price within a few months of first release and I will happily wait until then. I never pay the full 1st release price, does this mean that the studios are losing money because I wait until the price is realistic? How about getting the studios to not be such greedy bastards and release them at a fair price in the first place?

        1. david wilson

          @AC

          >>"I never pay the full 1st release price, does this mean that the studios are losing money because I wait until the price is realistic? How about getting the studios to not be such greedy bastards and release them at a fair price in the first place?"

          If there was a flat price from the start, and the same number of discs sold overall, wouldn't the flat price be higher than what you currently pay?

          If the studio makes more money out of the people who just can't wait, that means they need to make less out of you to make the same amount overall.

      5. Vic

        > the film studios are still not seeing any money from you

        A plan with no drawbacks...

        Vic.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oooh goodie, time to countersue

    Destruction of evidence

    Copyright violations (if they have siezed anyone's indie songs/books who isn't working with the prosecutions)

    Violation of data protection act (got to be some personal information stored that they are currently holding without permission)

    Perverting the course of justice (anyone storing legal documents on megaupload)

    Deleting the contents of a secure data provider without the consent of the data holders sounds highly illegal.

    1. Ben Tasker

      "anyone storing legal documents on megaupload"

      I strongly suspect you won't find any. Or at least none that aren't leaks, any Lawyer who used something like Megaupload to store their data should probably be disbarred!

      What is of course possible, is that cases in other jurisdictions could be fatally prejudiced. If I was suing you for (I dunno,) defamation, then it'd be nice to be able to provide the file as well as evidence that it was there. If it got deleted because of the Yanks, that'd be pretty fatal to my (ill thought out) case.

      It wouldn't however be classed as perverting the course of justice AFAIK

      1. futahorse

        Legitimacy can be painted over but not gotten rid of. Megaupload was a pretty legitimate service with legitimate files(Minecraft mods come to mind in my personal experiences). You can upload copyrighted content to Dropbox or 4shared or even host on SkyDrive. If the popularity or perceived popularity of uploading content that would be deemed illegal is large enough, it can make any service look illegitimate.

        1. david wilson

          >>"Legitimacy can be painted over but not gotten rid of. Megaupload was a pretty legitimate service with legitimate files"

          It was at least a partially legitimate service with some legtimate files.

          It'd be interesting to have some unbiased third party look at the range of content and the frequency of download (if available) to give some statistics on just what the balance was.

          Though who'd want to pay someone to do that immense job, I'm not sure.

        2. Tom 13

          You forget the Napster case

          If the prosecution can provide that the business model depended on infringement of copyrights, the case will proceed. Yes, criminal law is different than civil law, but in this case the concept will translate. I'm not saying this good, I am saying it is what is. Furthermore, since it is what is, and since this was a foreseeable outcome, MegaUpload should have had insurance to cover payments to keep the service running in the event their accounts were frozen, or at least had a clause in their contracts that the data would be preserved until such time as the case was decided. This is part of their fiduciary responsibility and it will therefore fall upon them if user data is lost. You can't blame the scorpion for stinging the frog when they are halfway across the stream.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I think you'll find...

      ..that a warrant from a court kind of overides pretty much every single one of your counter sue arguments.

      Cloning a drive is STANDARD practice, in fact if you use the originals, then the case will collapse because as soon as they open a file, it's classed as tampering with evidence.

  6. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Coffee/keyboard

    So the US Gov was just given carte blanche on a foreign file server because of "suspicion". They were able to copy personal documents, photos and other things from hundreds of thousands of people who have potentially nothing to do with copyright violations. The Feds can then take those files back to the USA, go through all of them at their leisure and store them indefinitely as "evidence".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Article seems to indicate that the data is held on servers in Virginia ... in which case the US authorities have obvious jurisdiction.

  7. Mike Smith
    Mushroom

    Meanwhile, over at the Department of Unfortunate Coincidences...

    The link at the bottom of this article says :"Create, deploy and manage web apps in the cloud with Windows Azure - 3 Month free trial".

    The trial will probably take at least that long.

    This would seem to be a good case for avoiding Azure, and all other cloud services with servers based in the US or countries run by its lickspittles.

    "Rothken said the company was working with prosecutors to try to ensure the data wasn't erased."

    Oh goody. If I had important stuff stored on Megaupload's system I'd feel so glad that they were going to TRY to ensure the data wasn't erased. How kind and thoughtful of them.

    "the US prosecutors reckon they have a case based on the fact that some of its leased servers were in Virginia."

    Allow me an ignorant animal-skin-wearing foreigner's perspective for a moment:

    Let us assume that I'm the IT Director for a successful and rapidly-growing business. We're generating tens of gigabytes of data a day. Data that is crucial to our business - it might be sales data, customer intelligence, financial data, picture or document archives, or whatever.

    One day, along comes a sales droid offering me the benefits of the cloud. Cut down your expensive data centre space, stop wasting money on SAN storage, sack a few PFYs, online 24/7 data access, seamless integration, resilient distributed storage around the globe, global load balancing, service level agreements, cut total cost of ownrship, reduce headcount and decrease resource costs, integrated outsourced right-shored value proposition, blah-de-blah-de-blah.

    If I were an IT Director, I'd be seduced by the meaningless babble and would sign on the line, possibly even without needing the alcofluence of incohol. But I'm not, thankfully.

    Just because some snivelling little lawyer//MPAA nobody/patent troll in the US believes that cloud company has some boxes that MIGHT contain some pirated Hollywood crap, a judge in another jurisdiction pulls the plug and shows that clouds really are made of vapour. Sod your business, we're gonna bust a cap in those goddam pirates' asses, boy.

    And I'm going to sign up for that, am I?

    Like fuck I am.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Have to agree with you

      But the issue is one of countries bending over and taking it from the US.

      You wont see big US companies like Google, Apple, MS etc facing this action as it would directly impact US jobs and the US economy.

      Google can link to torrents, Youtube can host to copyrighted material, iCloud can be packed with pirated material, drop box etc etc etc but as they are US companies they will not be hit in the same way.

      The think to check with your provider is not the SLA and the uptime but which senators they contribute to.

      1. Turtle

        "Google can link to torrents, Youtube can host to copyrighted material..."

        Unsurprisingly your examples show your lack of understanding: Google/Youtube are involved in many lawsuits for copyright infringement with their liability potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars - they themselves have budgeted at least two hundred millions dollars to cover their potential liabilities arising from Youtube alone, and that sum could easily prove to be wholly inadequate.

        1. auburnman
          Stop

          Well yes, but that's civil suits. Last I heard Google's board weren't in custody awaiting a criminal trial? And two hundred million, while a very tidy sum, is surely a drop in the ocean compared to Google's net worth. And providing for future damages is light years away from having the entire company's assets frozen.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "lickspittles"

      Such a lovely word.

      "This would seem to be a good case for avoiding Azure, and all other cloud services with servers based in the US or countries run by its lickspittles."

      Could prove difficult, since it seems that most countries with the infrastructure to support such services are either dodgy or behave like US lickspittles. Any suggestions?

      1. Mike Smith
        Megaphone

        The short answer...

        ... which Steven Roper's beaten me to is don't use the cloud. Nick the cloud sales droid's laptop and phone, fill him to overflowing with supermarket own-brand whisky and dump him on a train to Inverness with his ticket stapled to his jacket.

        If you absolutely must use the flipping cloud - perhaps because some senior management eejit's just committed you to a five-year contract - or you already do use it, the thing to to is make sure you've got copies of your data somewhere you can keep an eye on it. It might be on a few thousand tapes or discs, and will take a while to recover, but you'll at least have the peace of mind to know that the next Judge Dreddful from Deliverance County who decides to bring down a cloud provider for a month won't take your business down with it.

        Then of course, the lesson should be driven home by taking as long as you can to restore the data, accompanied by a heavily-inflated bill for hardware and overtime.

        Megaphone, for shouting 'don't use the cloud! Don't use the cloud!"

        1. Mad Mike
          Thumb Up

          @Mike Smith

          I don't disagree with your statement, but the growth area in cloud is not around storage so much as function. Moving your apps etc. into the cloud. If you do that, you're not going to be able to keep copies of constantly changing data. So, if you use the cloud for email services, how do you keep a copy someone else that's 'safe'?

          All in all, the answer is simply, don't use the cloud.

    3. Steven Roper
      Thumb Up

      In on sense

      I'm actually pleased about this fracas with Megaupload. It gave me a lot of very good ammo to convince the board of my company that moving our data storage to the cloud is a Really Bad Idea™. It let me paint a doomsday scenario that cleanly convinced the majority of the board that my precious servers here should stay. Thanks to this, my job is now secured against any cloud-pushing droid that oozes through our front door.

      If you're in IT, and you value your job, you also should be working overtime to convince your superiors that moving to the "cloud" is a disaster waiting to happen. The bottom line to use is:

      "Why the hell should we give control of our data to someone else who can lose it or tamper with it at any time, like the Megaupload case? If someone else uses the same cloud to infringe copyright or commit other crimes, we're screwed!"

      1. Tom 13

        Then your board is even more incompetent than you are.

        When you pay to host the service on the cloud, there are no adverts from which the vendor is deriving money. Moreover, your data is segregated from that of other vendors. So when the feds come knocking at the cloud vendor's door, the cloud vendor asks which clients are covered by the warrants. If you aren't covered by the warrants, your data aren't copied. Moreover, because the cloud vendor is cooperating with the police, and have in place specific methods for providing police with clones of the data, their servers are never taken offline in the first place.

        I still think trusting all your data to the cloud alone is stupid and incompetent, but not because the RIAA, MPAA, or other ip trolling rejects are going to be able to take down the cloud. In fact, in this case, it is evident that the company selling the cloud service TO MegaUpload is largely unaffected by the prosecution of the case.

        1. Mike Smith
          Mushroom

          You're overlooking one crucial thing

          "Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken told the Associated Press that at least 50 million users had stored data with the company, including family photos and personal documents. Users weren't able to access the data throughout this month while the prosecutors held the servers."

          Unless I've misread that, it appears that a lot of innocent people were caught in the trawl. I don't think there are many companies who would happily accept losing access to their data for a month while the prosecutors went rifling through the servers.

          You may be right regarding the warrants - I certainly hope you are - but the end result for Joe Customer in this case has been a month's outage. And ti's the end result that's important; if I'm paying someone for a cloud service, I couldn't care less who their sub-sub-sub-contracted value-added partners are. What I would see, as a paying customer, is a loss of service that I'd no control over. The American prosecutors wouldn't give a monkey's about my business, unless it was a big US corporation with sufficient financial clout to buy some influence in the government.

          Mushroom cloud, because sooner or later, some sizeable companies are going to see that happen to their cloudy solutions just because some vindictive American IP troll's going after a few illicit MP3s.

  8. Valerion

    Hang on....

    So if these storage companies were the ones actually storing the copyrighted material... why aren't THEY being taken to court?

    1. Tom 13

      Because they weren't the ones flacking ads

      begging user to infringe on copyrighted material.

  9. Edward Clarke
    Thumb Down

    Idiots

    If the data on the servers gets wiped then their whole case goes out the window. A criminal case requires a whole different level of evidence from the normal civil case. The words are "beyond a reasonable doubt" - you can't figure any way for him to be innocent. In a civil case, it's more of he probably did it.

    If I were on the jury and heard that the government froze the money required to preserve evidence that might have proven the defendant innocent then I'd return an immediate not guilty verdict. You can't put a man in jail (or I can't anyway) unless you're sure they're guilty.

    1. Dave 15

      Beyond doubt?

      Not really, more like the government said these were nasty terrorist funding hollywood bashing foreign nasties so hang them high and yee haa burn the bastards....

      No real proof of anything will be provided or needed and US 'justice' will screw the defendants.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Mark McNeill
      Black Helicopters

      @ Edward Clarke: You can beat the rap...

      ...but you can't beat the ride.

      "If the data on the servers gets wiped then their whole case goes out the window. A criminal case requires a whole different level of evidence from the normal civil case."

      I don't think they need to care much about a criminal case. They've got him in custody, they can probably keep him in jail for a few years during extradition hearings and pre-trial, they've destroyed his business, they're [possibly, subject to yada yada] three days away from destroying all the data on the servers. That sends a pretty powerful message even without a criminal conviction at the end of it: just look at what the other filesharing sites have been doing in the last few days.

      "You can't put a man in jail (or I can't anyway) unless you're sure they're guilty."

      Except, he's in jail.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        And if the case collapses...

        $Deity that's a big compensation claim, and a really, really big lawsuit for defamation and damages against the ones who brought the allegations.

        Whatever happens, this is going to be very, very interesting - and likely utterly devastating for the RIAA and MPAA either way.

        1. david wilson

          @AC

          >>"$Deity that's a big compensation claim, and a really, really big lawsuit for defamation and damages against the ones who brought the allegations."

          Well, if RIAA/MPAA hadn't done much more than complain about the seeming inadequacy of the takedown responses and give whatever evidence they had over to the authorities, unless the data they provided was actually fabricated, once the authorities took the ball and ran with it, I think that probably leaves the original complainants largely, if not entirely, off the hook.

          If someone told the police that their neighbour seemed to be involved in all kinds of strange stuff - odd late-night comings-and-goings, always flashing wads of cash around, etc, strange herbal smells they couldn't quite place, etc - and after some surveillance which gave them legal justification for a raid, the police raided his place and didn't find enough evidence of criminality to charge him, even if the raid screwed his business, I doubt he'd have any obvious comeback against the original complainer if they hadn't made anything up.

          In the normal course of events, he might not even have the right to ask who the complainer was, even if he might suspect.

          Even if it came to going after the police, while they might not have enough evidence for criminal action, depending what he was actually doing and how dubious it looked (or could be made to look), he might not necessarily have a great chance of portraying himself as an poor innocent victim of harassment.

          >>"Whatever happens, this is going to be very, very interesting - and likely utterly devastating for the RIAA and MPAA either way."

          It's certainly going to be interesting, but I'm not entirely sure it's an RIAA-killer.

          if the case succeeds, they seem to win to some extent, and can still argue that the law needs strengthening to make action against these awful pirates and their helpers easier, and or to aid dealing more easily with more-overseas-based operations.

          But if not, they have a pretty good excuse to argue that the law can't be strong enough if these terrible people can make so much money by effectively knowingly profiting from infringement without being liable.

          Let's face it, Kim is a pretty convenient guy to have as a target, whether the first shot hits ('he's guilty!') or misses ('we need better weapons!"').

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I'm not sure how it is in America, but in the UK, the police would pay.

          Let's say someone tells the police they think you have some illegal substances in your house. The police decided to do a midnight raid and arrest you while they search. They have to a) make sure the house is secure, and b) pay for any thing they break, including broken doors and ripped up floorboards. That's regardless of if they find anything or not. If they find nothing then they have to compensate you for the time they've held you for. Certainly that's according to the UK guides on this subject.

          Unless you can show the person who called the police did so maliciously (including a prank) then you can't touch them.

          The MPAA/RIAA would be up for a bashing on social media sites, but they would not face penalties unless they were shown to have fabricated evidence. The FBI or whoever would be the ones to foot the bill (assuming they have a similar compensation clause as the UK does). Which means the US citizens get to pay... and not the MPAA/RIAA. Win for them, loose for everyone else.

          1. david wilson

            @AC

            >>"I'm not sure how it is in America, but in the UK, the police would pay."

            >>"Let's say someone tells the police they think you have some illegal substances in your house. The police decided to do a midnight raid and arrest you while they search. They have to a) make sure the house is secure, and b) pay for any thing they break, including broken doors and ripped up floorboards. That's regardless of if they find anything or not. If they find nothing then they have to compensate you for the time they've held you for. Certainly that's according to the UK guides on this subject."

            Though if a crime is committed in a squat or rented property, would the police have to pay to store all the contents of the building just in case someone might want to use something in their defence?

            Would they have to rent the building indefinitely to prevent the owners using it for something else?

            Would they even have a right to keep hold of anything which they couldn't claim was relevant evidence for the investigation?

            It's certainly complicated here by the fact money has been frozen, but in a similar case where it hadn't been frozen, it would seem that the business would probably have to pay for keeping any data the authorities weren't interested in.

            That would suggest that maybe sufficient assets should be unfrozen to pay for its upkeep, if the defendants want that.

            If they don't want that, they might find it hard to successfully claim unfairness later.

            After all they wouldn't be benefiting from the money in any sense other than getting a better chance at a trial, while a presumably/supposedly legitimate US company would be, so that should be relatively easy for the US authorities to stomach.

            1. Ben Tasker

              Hate to tell you this, but you've been misinformed.

              If the Ole Bill kick your door in and find evidence of a crime, the cost of the door is yours to pay.

              If they find nothing, you may get some money but only if they've made an actual mistake (got the address wrong for example). See this lovely lass.

              They do of course have to (re)secure the property, and a failure to do so could result in them being liable for loss. Not sure this is something that translates well to the Internet though, they haven't for example published the contents of the servers far and wide (which could be a data protection issue depending what's hosted). The data hosted is quite unlikely to be stolen.

            2. Mad Mike
              Thumb Up

              David Wilson

              "Though if a crime is committed in a squat or rented property, would the police have to pay to store all the contents of the building just in case someone might want to use something in their defence?"

              Absolutely not. They would, however, have to sieze anything potentially relevant to the case and that could be quite a wide definition. That might include everything owned by the suspect and could extend to others if deemed appropriate. It is up to the investigating authorities to take everything relevant to the case regardless of whether it's for the prosecution or defence. The wording (and it might be a case of interpretation) suggests that in the case of MU, they have only copied selective MU data. In that case, all relevant evidence almost certainly hasn't been secured.

              "Would they have to rent the building indefinitely to prevent the owners using it for something else?"

              If the building itself is relevant and needs to be preserved for some reason (not often, but sometimes happens) and photos etc. are not good enough, then yes. The building, property whatever is relevant and therefore must be kept as is until the case is over. Obviously, in most cases, alternatives can be found.

              I totally agree that sufficient assets should be unfrozen to pay to keep the data available for a period of time to give people a chance to remove their files. It needn't be for long and the money would in no way be of benefit to the (alleged) criminal. And on top of all that, the authorities would be regarded as acting reasonably and hopefully would get a much better image out of it. This would potentially even extend to the MPAA etc. who could reasonably say they were only going after the infringers. At the moment, they appear to be after legitimate users as well.

              1. david wilson

                @Mad Mike

                >>"I totally agree that sufficient assets should be unfrozen to pay to keep the data available for a period of time to give people a chance to remove their files."

                Well, they might understandably not want to open it up for anyone to download anything in any quantity and with minimal records kept.

                How easy it would be to have a system that allowed legitimate copying back of data, but blocked business as usual, I wouldn't like to say.

                >>"And on top of all that, the authorities would be regarded as acting reasonably and hopefully would get a much better image out of it."

                I guess if they reckon legitimate use was limited, they might think that, if technically feasible, and someone else footing the bill, having a system where they asked people to apply for access to get one copy of their data back could give them useful ammunition in the case of having relatively few applications for access, even if such applications would naturally only reflect a fraction of total legitimate usage, excluding both use for legitimate distribution, and use for legitimate storage of stuff not kept elsewhere.

                Certainly, there'd be a good PR angle for giving some kind of access, especially since in the absence of doing anything, there'd be little to stop any number of invented/exaggerated tales of lost valuable or personal data flying around alongside any genuine ones, whereas giving reasonable access would largely knock that kind of thing on the head.

                On the other hand, maybe they'd reckon that encouraging people to keep legitimate data away from 'borderline legal' sites in future might be handy as well, making it easier to portray such places as not merely being unlawful in some of their activity, but not even having much legitimate use going on.

    4. Tom 13

      Then I guess you have no idea

      what a cloned drive is and are entirely unfit to serve on a jury in any event.

      1. david wilson

        @Tom13

        Any chance you could reference the post you're replying to - sometimes active threads can get hard to read if people don't.

  10. Danington the Third
    FAIL

    @USDOJ

    When can I retrieve all the legitimate data I have stored? On my lifetime platinum account? that I paid for? Thanks USDOJ, for ruining the accounts of millions of users over your 'information infringement' claims.

    Will you be reimbursing Mega's customers the money you have effectively stolen from us? Or does the standard only work one way?

    1. TeeCee Gold badge
      Facepalm

      "On my lifetime platinum account? that I paid for?"

      More fool you. I took one look at the advert strewn mess, the relentless upgrade nagging, variable reliability, vast selection of links in the wild pointing there for obviously moody content and decided many moons gone that my money wouldn't be going anywhere near the ruddy place.

      Always felt just a shade too fly-by-night for my liking. There are plenty of online storage places that don't have a presentation that looks like a Flash advert for Geocities and who wield the banhammer at anyone taking the piss with what they're sharing.

      Put it this way. If you had a selection of diamonds would you put them in a safe deposit box in a bank vault or "Honest Fred's no-questions-asked secure storage"? Caveat Emptor.

      1. Mad Mike
        FAIL

        @TeeCee

        Mmmmmm. So, presumably you don't own a bank account? All these very exemplary banks that would have gone bankrupt if governments hadn't stepped in. It you lost all your money due to picking the wrong high street bank, would you say the same. In the UK, anyone with money in RBS or HBOS (LLoyds only got dodgy when it was forced to take HBOS over) would have lost the lot. However, the government stepped in and if not, the banking compensation scheme would have covered at least some of the money.

        The point here, is that it's unnecessary. They could easily shut the service down for a week, take full backups etc. for the court case and then make it available again for people to download anything they need. They could even monitor what people are downloading and if they are breaking copyright, prosecute them. But no......they take the nuclear option and hit the innocent as well as the guilty. Epic fail and totally unnecessary.

        1. david wilson

          @Mad Mike

          >>"In the UK, anyone with money in RBS or HBOS (LLoyds only got dodgy when it was forced to take HBOS over) would have lost the lot. However, the government stepped in and if not, the banking compensation scheme would have covered at least some of the money."

          Well, deposits up to a decent level were automatically covered, so no individual would have lost the lot, and most people would have been fully covered.

          Someone with an account below the compensation limit could have invested their money quite safely, as long as the bank was a UK one, covered by the scheme.

          >>"The point here, is that it's unnecessary. They could easily shut the service down for a week, take full backups etc. for the court case and then make it available again for people to download anything they need. They could even monitor what people are downloading and if they are breaking copyright, prosecute them."

          Is downloading a criminal offence in the USA or is it the uploading (including making stuff available P2P) that is potentially criminal, similar to what (I think) is the UK situation?

          >>"But no......they take the nuclear option and hit the innocent as well as the guilty"

          Have they actually taken an option yet?

          1. Mad Mike

            @David WIlson

            "Well, deposits up to a decent level were automatically covered, so no individual would have lost the lot, and most people would have been fully covered.

            Someone with an account below the compensation limit could have invested their money quite safely, as long as the bank was a UK one, covered by the scheme."

            I suspect this was a major reason why they bailed the banks out. The financial compensation scheme simply couldn't have covered the losses that would have occured and the compensation claims, so either it would have fallen (which would have been a disaster for the industry), or the government would have had to step in. So, don't think the compensation scheme protected anyone from these banks failing......it simply doesn't have the assets available.

            "Is downloading a criminal offence in the USA or is it the uploading (including making stuff available P2P) that is potentially criminal, similar to what (I think) is the UK situation?"

            I was not talking about allowing people to download copyright violating material. I said they could either filter the material, or more likely, simply log who downloads what. Then, when the copyright violating files are identified, the people can be prosecuted for downloading. In the UK, both uploaders and downloaders are potentially liable to prosecution, although it tends to be uploaders that are chased as they make the material available and are generally easier to find.

            "Have they actually taken an option yet?"

            Agreed, they have not. But, given that the US have taken the nuclear option so many times in their history (and are now reaping the benefits), I think it likely.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Dannington

      It would be (subject to them being found guilty) Megaupload who stole money from you, by offering a service which is not legal.

      I have come across Megaupload several times, each time, I was looking for software that probably wasn't entirely legitimate to be in the public domain. Each time I saw megaupload, asking me to subscribe to be able to download, I thought "I'm steering well clear of this, it's obviously dodgy as hell and I don't want to end up the victim of identity theft or with a virus riddled computer."

  11. Steve Knox
    Mushroom

    Am I the only one who READ this article?

    1. The servers were on US soil, hence under US jurisdiction.

    2. The US Government only copied data relevant to the case.

    3. As of right now, NOTHING has been deleted.

    4. There are currently no active plans to delete data. However, a payment deadline (apparently) comes up this Thursday, at which point the data could be deleted. BUT:

    5. There are ongoing negotiations to preserve the data.

    All of this information is in the article, with the exception of the payment deadline, which is a logical inference from the statement that Megaupload can't pay the hosting provider due to its assets being frozen and the statement that deletions could happen as early as Thursday.

    Oh, and as a side note, you have this file or set of files that are important to you, so you upload them to some third-party site like Megaupload. And then you delete the originals? Really? The real root cause of any lost data in this case will be the incompetence of the data owners.

    1. Andrew Norton
      Facepalm

      I *LOVE* these kinds of statements, makes it sound so simple, but really, it's 'perfect world' nonsense.

      You might well have read this article, but you've clearly not read the rest, or relevant case law, or much else connected to the case.

      Think back oooh 30 years, to the Betamax case. There was a ruling by a little known body called the US SUPREME COURT that noted that VCR's were NOT to be banned if they had 'significant non-infringing uses.' (that means designed uses which do not require infringement)

      Now tell me, how exactly do you show that this was happening and widespread? Easiest way would be to have the data available....

      I know I had non-infringing use of MU. I launched a book last week, a combination of essays. It's called "No Safe Harbor" (www.nosafeharbor.com) and it's free to download. I'd been putting versions of the ebook (in different formats) onto MU for some friends to check. When done ,that would have been another alternate download source.

      As for your side note, quite a straw man. The only reason the MU version might be the only copy is because 'you deleted the original'? So, hard drive failure, computer stolen, fire/flood/unexpected corporate-driven police-raid, what about in THOSE circumstances?

      By the way, i was cranking through ebook versions 2 weeks ago so fast at one point, that sometimes the MU versions were only in one place, MU.

      1. Turtle

        SCOTUS & MU

        The "'perfect world' nonsense" is your idea that the world revolves around the fact that YOU uploaded some garbage to Megaupload.

        And you haven't really replied to any of the points in Steve Knox's post other than call it "'perfect world' nonsense".

        As for the US Supreme Court saying that "VCR's were NOT to be banned if they had 'significant non-infringing uses" you have clearly misunderstood it: it does NOT mean "some uses, or possible uses which do not require infringement". A more exact - although still inexact - meaning would be "many of its uses do not necessarily require infringement". It does not mean "someone somewhere is using it for non-infringing uses". And it *certainly* does not mean "YOU are using it to store versions of something you're writing".

        To put this another way, your files do not shield Megaupload.

        And here is what the Supreme Court said in "MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd." when they vacated a lower court ruling that found in favor of Grokster: "the rule on inducement of infringement as developed in the early cases is no different today. Advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law's reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use…" (That from Wikipedia's articles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios)

        So the fact that Megaupload might have non-infringing uses does not shield them from liability for infringing uses.

        And even then, it does not appear to me at least that either of these two Supreme Court decisions offer any defense to Megaupload: they have offer payments to users who upload frequently-downloaded files, knew as shown by their emails that they knew that their servers were being used for infringement and profited from it, and refused to remove infringing files.

        By the way, should your files on Megaupload also shield them from charges of money-laundering?

        "As for your side note, quite a straw man. The only reason the MU version might be the only copy is because 'you deleted the original'? So, hard drive failure, computer stolen, fire/flood/unexpected corporate-driven police-raid, what about in THOSE circumstances?"

        Now THIS would be a good example of a straw-man argument! What would make you think that Megaupload servers are immune to these same problems? So you have not defeated Steve Knox's original point, which, if I may paraphrase, is that anyone keeping their only copies of important files on Megaupload, or anywhere else, with no copies anywhere else, is an "idiot".

        1. david wilson

          @Turtle

          (To Mike)

          >>"As for the US Supreme Court saying that "VCR's were NOT to be banned if they had 'significant non-infringing uses" you have clearly misunderstood it: it does NOT mean "some uses, or possible uses which do not require infringement". A more exact - although still inexact - meaning would be "many of its uses do not necessarily require infringement". It does not mean "someone somewhere is using it for non-infringing uses". And it *certainly* does not mean "YOU are using it to store versions of something you're writing"."

          I'd guess a relevant factor is also that the decision was about banning VCRs in general, not about taking action against one particular VCR or its owner.

          With regard to websites, if they're going to be looked at as individual things on their own merits, then it's not like banning all websites in advance because some could be used for dodgy ends, but looking at a particular website to see what is going on there.

    2. Mad Mike
      FAIL

      @Steve Knox

      Could I clarify one of your points.

      2. It does not say the US Government only copied data relevant to the case. It says they copied selective information. Who's to say that was everything to do with MU? How did they make the decision of what is 'relevant'? Perhaps relevant to the prosecution only?

      The incompetence here is not of the data owner. If a site offers secure and safe storage and that's part of the contract, you're entitled to expect this. BT has a cloud storage product for sale in this country. If some use this for illegal purposes, should everyone loose their data? Do you not trust BT to hold your data securely?

      Obviously, in an ideal world, everyone should keep two copies, but there are a variety of reasons why people might not be able to. As mentioned earlier, this also spells the deathknell of cloud services. What this is proving, is that unless the data is stored on your servers under your control, it can disappear at any time.

      1. Steve Knox

        @Mad Mike

        I did not say they copied ALL relevant data, only that they copied relevant data, and of course the decision of what is relevant was theirs. It's their case. My point was that they are not obligated to copy and preserve data not relevant to their case.

        As for trusting BT (or anyone else, even with an ironclad contract) to hold the only copy of my data safe and secure? Don't make me laugh! In the event of a failure, the best you can hope for is monetary recompense -- if they mess up, your data is already gone. That's why backup exists. That's why the adage is "If your data doesn't exist in at least three places, it doesn't exist." I would personally add that at least two of those places should be under your direct control, or they don't count.

        I reaffirm: Anyone responsible for data of any importance who decides to store only one copy of it in a location they do not have direct control over, in a storage service open to use (and therefore abuse) to the general public, is INCOMPETENT.

        1. Mad Mike

          @Steve Knox

          It is a fundamental requirement of fairness in trials that all the evidence is available to both the prosecution and defence. The prosecution may choose not to use it, but it must be presented to the defence for their case if they choose to use it. Therefore, the only valid way to do this, is to copy ALL of the data and make it available to both. The prosecution does not have the right to determine what is and what is not relevant as quite clearly their view is highly biased. Unless all the data has been copied and made available, the case is dead. Even the judiciary in the USA wouldn't dare allow that through.

          I don't disagree with your case about data backups, but you're simply proving my point. Cloud based solutions, whether data backup or application hosting, are now effectively dead unless you play fast and loose with your data. These clowns have been allowed to trample all over an entire industry that would have brought a lot of money to the usa and to what end? Will this stop copyright violations.....not a hope. If anything, this will do the exact reverse. It's the usual usa carpet bombing trick. It never made them any friends in the past and certainly won't in the future.

  12. Dave 15

    Cloud computing.... is this the death knell?

    I would think so. After all, with a 'cloud' service you have no control where the data is stored - so data stored in the US could (by this example) be copied by the authorities. Even if encrypted we KNOW that the US government can and does read encrypted data. Worse still, can you imagine this happening to your cloud service provider - all your companies data lost, all your files frozen and inaccessible?

    Even for a normal user this is a disaster - what if I had stored my own photos, videos and data on this site? It would now be lost. Cloud companies are also totally at risk from exactly this sort of action.

    The US authorities are doing their damnedest to shaft an entire industry before it has even started. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that occurs when you allow the playground bully too much power. The US spends a collosal 43% of the worlds total military spending - more than 6 times its nearest rival. This is clearly not defence, it is offence (and offensive). Frankly the rest of the world needs to up its own military spending and confront the bully, and do it fast.

    1. oldredlion
      Holmes

      There was a report recently of an NHS trust putting their data on a cloud system.

      I can't recall exactly where it was based but as it becomes more popular (and more personal data is held) then the likelihood of data being stored on US soil becomes greater. Imagine if the US did something similar and that system was taken down.

      Hopefully this'll concentrate minds and either stop our government departments allowing data to be held abroad or stop them using out sourced data warehouses completely.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Oldredlion

        It was a storage hosting arrangement for an NHS trust, with EMC, hardy cloud computing and hardly giving patient data to Megaupload.

  13. Boy Wonder

    As usual

    The predicable tirade against the DoJ, MPAA, RIAA, etc. etc. just goes on and on whenever an item comes up involving piracy.

    I particularly love the disingenuous faux-ignorance as to the extent to which Megaupload (and others) host pirated material.

    Then there is the analogy drawn between recording some film on TV onto VHS tape and hosting pirated material on MU.

    Except, DUH, you didn't go around with a portable VHS tape-to-tape into people's houses along with your VHS collection, offering to make copies available to anyone who wanted one.

    Or did you? Judging by your cavalier attitude to rights, maybe you did.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All data is illegal and pirated. Fact.

    Ever since I was a kid I thought the "No unauthorised broadcast, sharing, rental, re-sale, lending, giving away..." blurb meant that buying/selling secondhand CDs, DVDs etc was illegal. Then I realised it was utter crap and carried on watching my TV-recorded Star Wars & MTV mix videos.

    We truly are in an age of "All your data are belong to US". Yes, I meant that "US". Of A.

    My favourite idiot quote of the weekend, courtesy of MMO-land: "did we win the SOPA war yet? wheres the fighting anyway?". I'm pretty sure the answer involved "the whitehouse lawn".

  15. Old Cynic

    imagine if banks were forced to open up every safe deposit box in the vaults because somebody thought there was something dodgy in one of them...

    Now imagine if the contents disappeared...

    1. jonathanb Silver badge

      like this case? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23939717-operation-rize.do

    2. david wilson

      @Old Cynic

      >>"imagine if banks were forced to open up every safe deposit box in the vaults because somebody thought there was something dodgy in one of them..."

      >>"Now imagine if the contents disappeared..."

      Now imagine someone put their sole copy of some important documents in 'Diamond Geezer's It'll-Be-Alright Lockup Service', when they had no fucking idea where he was going to store their stuff, whether he'd be storing it in his lockup garage or someone else's, and where it wasn't obvious what obligations, if any, he would have if he or anyone else lost it *or* how he was promising to look after it.

      And you call *yourself* an old cynic

  16. produce
    Big Brother

    Who are they protecting

    It just came to mind that if they are being selective on what files they intend to keep could they also delete any illegally uploaded files that Prominent people uploaded along with their ip's and such.

  17. Jim Carter
    FAIL

    Seems like egregious data tampering to me.

    What if data pertaining to the defence is "accidentally" deleted?

  18. httpss

    Do it fast?? Yes and no.

    YES

    and

    NO upbudget needed for confronting a playground bully. Asymmetric "r"us...We need look no further than the last two major illegal military invasions by the usans. In both cases the indigents trashed the usan mil using pound shop weaponry.

    What's needed is the will to say enough or FO or whatever...

    1. Mad Mike
      FAIL

      @httpss

      What the Americans need to understand, is that if you p**s off enough people, you can have the largest military in the world by a country mile, but it won't save you. The USA have for decades been trying to upset whole swathes of the planet. You can list them all......Vietnam, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.etc. And how many of these wars have they won? They'd like to say all or most, but the reality is none. In Iraq they got whipped by people barely out of the stone age. Same in Afghanistan. In Somalia, they had to leave in humiliation......defeated by people with AK47s and RPGs.

      Over the years, the USA has become more and more of a terrorist target and they can't see the correlation. A large part of it relates to their complete contempt for civilians during their actions. They'll kill dozens of innocents to get a few guilty. How many times has this happened in Iraq and Afghanistan?

      Now, with this action, they are doing exactly the same, but on computers. Yes, they're getting some people (decide on how many you think) who have broken the law, but they're hitting huge numbers in collateral. Are they making friends by doing it? If you've lost data in this debacle, are you saying it was all worth it to catch the pirates? No. You're probably more inclined to become a pirate now!!

      Everything the USA does simply turns more and more people against them. Then they wonder why whole swathes of the world hate them and they're terrorist target number 1!!

      For god sake; wake up and realise the correlation and try to understand this action is likely to increase the number of pirates, not decrease it. Just like in all your other wars. And in all cases, quite often the average Joe in the USA doesn't actually agree with it. The anti-piracy law is being brought and paid for by big business in much the same way may of their other wars are. Plenty of people making a lot of money out of them, many being current politicians or people close to them.

  19. Graham Wilson
    Angel

    Oh you wonderful Cloud.

    On initial glance it welcomed warmly as did Cheshire Cat,

    Upon the second you've mistaken, for it's Schrodinger's instead.

    For now your data's both alive and dead

    Until peered on by a Prosecutor's head!

    (err. sorry)

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They copied selected data off?

    Wait, what you mean is the FBI chose all the best films and music and copied it! Quick, sue them!

  21. httpss

    @ Mad Mike "what the americans need to understand"

    Two points arise -

    The term "American" will include people and societies, even countries, ranging from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. So in the quest for even-handedness and to avoid the possibulity of smearing innocents, the collective noun(vaguely but justifiably pejorative) for persons emanating from Fed States now in general use is "usan".

    Again, in the search for balanced viewpoints, we have to be aware that the cabal who are operating the sopa, acta and siezing persons and property are in this case largely usans of a particular tribe. A tribe whose name we dare not say...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes, that's it

      Using the term "American" is the big issue here. Thank goodness you clarified the exact sweep of generalisation.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Clouds

    In many ways, not a lot of difference between this and many cloud services. I wonder how long it will be before some of them are found to be hosting improper material and get closure notices, with consequent data deletion?

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not a good move really

    This looks to me like an excellent example of the damage to the internet that over-zealous piracy-busting can do, just as its detractors claim. It directly undermines confidence in letting your data out of your sight. If that isn't impacting the direction that progress is taking us, I don't know what is.

    Which site is next and will your data be on it?

    1. david wilson

      @AC

      >>"This looks to me like an excellent example of the damage to the internet that over-zealous piracy-busting can do, just as its detractors claim. It directly undermines confidence in letting your data out of your sight. If that isn't impacting the direction that progress is taking us, I don't know what is."

      It does at least suggest that if people are going to let important data out of their sight (let alone *sole copies of important data*) that they use a little bit of sense and check out who's going to be in charge of it to a degree commensurate with the data's value.

      If 'progress is taking us' in the direction of blindly trusting 'the internet', then even if nothing else good comes out of it, with a bit of luck this case *will* directly undermine the confidence of many people.

      >>"Which site is next and will your data be on it?"

      If any other sites, then likely ones sailing a bit close to (or beyond) the limits of the legal, none of which I seem to use for anything, let alone backup, so I guess my data is fairly safe for now.

  24. Mectron

    the USA

    Mainly the MPAA/RIAA: Enemy of menkind

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oops...

    There goes all your data. Boo Hoo.

  26. Spud2go
    Pint

    I'm puzzled...

    If this is a LEGAL case, shouldn't they be retaining all the data as evidence?

    1. david wilson

      It would seem best if they could use some seized assets to pay for the data to be kept, but presumably that's one of the things they're negotiating about.

      Justice would suggest that at the very least, giving the defence access to it for a reasonable time to look for defence evidence would be necessary.

      If it came to storing it all, potentially for years before trials and possible appeals, just in case some of it was useful to the defence, it might be a bit much to expect the US to pay for all that.

      Otherwise, what would happen if there was a similar situation which was being run more hand-to-mouth, with huge monthly storage bills and only enough money around to pay for the next couple of months?

      1. Mad Mike
        Thumb Up

        @David Wilson

        I don't disagree. The deletion of the data would seem to render any court case immediately biased if only the prosecution have had the opportunity to take what they want. In terms of costs................according to reports and the prosecution themselves, there is plenty of money in accounts that are now frozen. So, why not use that? I suspect the answer is that the prosecutors/people they're acting for consider that their money now?

        The rights and wrongs of the case and whether they are guilty or not don't come into the administration of justice. For justice to be done, it has to be seen to be done. The actions of the prosecution here would seem to prohibit that and if anything, will probably cause more people to file share. Not because they necessarily agree with it per se, but because of the lack of clear and transparent justice.

      2. Tom 13

        There are no seized assets anymore.

        The police made their copies and gave the servers back to the vendor, which was NOT MegaUpload. That vendor is due payment from MegaUpload, which MegaUpload are not able to pay because their assets have been FROZEN. The assets are frozen because of the money laundering charges, which enable RICO seizures. RICO* laws were passed in order to limit the ability of organized crime to move their money about and continue their criminal enterprise even though a given individual in the organization might have been arrested, tried, and convicted. Also it seems to have increased the longevity of star witnesses in the cases of such organizations.

        On the issue of the data, the police are issued a warrant to cover certain items. Items not covered by the warrants can't be kept. Hence the "selective" copying: they selectively copied the data covered by the warrants. Copying more than what is covered by the warrant is illegal and has the high probability of getting the case dismissed. The copied data must be made available to the defense. If the defense wishes to search for more data, that's on their dime and at their risk for civil suit if THEY breach someone's rights.

        *I actually come down on the side of people who think RICO needs to at least be re-written if not repealed because of abuses which have happened with non-organized crime defendants, but the law is what it is, and those are the reasons given by those who support RICO for keeping it as is.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Operation "Fukem" continues....

    ...I'm not going to the cinema/movies again this year.

    That's 5+ years now.

  28. Haku

    To the people who have lost legitimately owned data on MU:

    I'm genuinely curious, are you pissed at the copyright infringers, the MPAA/RIAA or someone else for the loss of data?

    1. Mad Mike

      @Haku

      It is quite obviously the authorities that are responsible for the loss of data. The MPAA/RIAA have requested justice and after due process will/will not get it from their point of view, depending on the verdict. The 'alleged' copyright infringers can't be held accountable as they didn't initiate this. There is absolutely no reason why the files can't be left available for a certain period of time and people given the ability to download their content. They could even monitor it so any infringing files and their downloaders are found. According to the prosecution there is plenty of money in MUs accounts to finance this, so it needn't cost the USA any money. Not doing this just annoys loads of people and is simply unnecessary.

      They could try and take the moral high ground whilst being seen to be reasonable in protecting the innocent. Instead, they are choosing to hit the innocent as well as the guilty. That's no way to win, as the USA has been shown many times before. Not that they're listening.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Mike

        With just one look at Megaupload you could see that it was a dodgy site. I came across it several times before I didn't just presume that it was a scam to get my credit card data. If I had put any of my own money into the site and my own data onto it, I would be blaming myself for its loss.

        I'm guessing that the files aren't left available because with the assets of the organisation frozen there is no money to pay for the bandwidth/storage, both very expensive commodities.

        1. Mad Mike
          Thumb Down

          @AC

          'With just one look at Megaupload you could see that it was a dodgy site'.

          There are two issues with this.

          Firstly, does the RBS bank website look 'dodgy' to you? Well, include HBOS as well and both of these could have taken a lot of people down if the government hadn't stepped in. Would you have been happy to loose thousands to them? The point is you can't tell if a site is 'dodgy' or not simply by looking at it. It takes a whole lot more than that. Very professional looking and acting sites are used for all sorts of dodgy purposes as well. MU is far from the only site used for copyright infringement. Others like Rapidshare, Hotfile etc.etc. have just as much. If these get closed down, it'll simply move elsewhere.

          Secondly. Even if you accept the people were silly to put their files there, the action is completely unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason why the money in MUs bank accounts can't be used to keep the site up for say a month and allow people to download their files. Maybe they were silly in your eyes or not, but there's no need to deliberately hit them. This action suggests they are grouping all MU users together as copyright infringers and therefore punishing them all. Strangely, that is actually explicitly banned in US law!!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Mike

            No, you really can tell if a site is dodgy or not by looking at it:

            RBS something like 350 year old banking institution with a web site dedicated to banking and its customers. Regulated by the FSA and formerly the Bank of England, covered by the financial services compensation scheme. Not Dodgy.

            Megaupload advertising downloads of clearly commercial software and cracks in exchange for money. Obviously dodgy.

            It doesn't matter that one of the two failed and was bailed out and the other was closed down by police, the reason that RBS was bailed out was because they were legitimate and could be brought back to profit on the existing business model. The same cannot be said for Megaupload.

            1. Mad Mike
              FAIL

              @AC

              "No, you really can tell if a site is dodgy or not by looking at it:

              RBS something like 350 year old banking institution with a web site dedicated to banking and its customers. Regulated by the FSA and formerly the Bank of England, covered by the financial services compensation scheme. Not Dodgy.

              Megaupload advertising downloads of clearly commercial software and cracks in exchange for money. Obviously dodgy.

              It doesn't matter that one of the two failed and was bailed out and the other was closed down by police, the reason that RBS was bailed out was because they were legitimate and could be brought back to profit on the existing business model. The same cannot be said for Megaupload."

              You're completely missing the point. I'm talking about dodgy not from a legal standpoint, but from you giving your business to them standpoint. RBS are not legally dodgy, but if the government hadn't rescued them, you could have lost thousands or more because of their business model. What's the difference between that and loosing files (in place of money) to MU because of their business model.....e.g.copyright violation. Either way, their business model could cost you a lot.

              Looking back on it, doing business with RBS was at least as hazardous to your financial wellbeing as storing files on MU and therefore your point applies to both. I think you'll find your last statement that RBS 'could be brought back to profit on the existing business model' is wholesale wrong and that's why RBS is divesting itself of parts of the business and chaning its business model an awful lot.

              Yes, it was regulated by the FSA and covered by the financial services compensation scheme (although this could never have covered all the losses if they'd failed), but look at what a good job they did. It was plainly in trouble for some time. There are plenty of people who think the executive are culpable as well. They certainly made some very dodgy statements to the markets.

              1. david wilson

                @Mad Mike

                >>"You're completely missing the point. I'm talking about dodgy not from a legal standpoint, but from you giving your business to them standpoint. RBS are not legally dodgy, but if the government hadn't rescued them, you could have lost thousands or more because of their business model."

                I'm not sure he (assuming the AC is a 'he') is missing the point.

                Assuming he'd checked up before paying his money in, he would have effectively seen a legitimate guarantee insuring his deposits against loss, at least up to a certain level, and might even had some expectation the government might help even beyond that level.

                Which means he doesn't actually have to /care/ about their business model, or how well the FSA might be supervising them, or anything like that.

                >>"Looking back on it, doing business with RBS was at least as hazardous to your financial wellbeing as storing files on MU and therefore your point applies to both."

                Not for someone who had actually checked them out to see they were covered and who was only storing reasonable amounts of their own money there.

                1. Mad Mike
                  Thumb Down

                  @David Wilson

                  "Assuming he'd checked up before paying his money in, he would have effectively seen a legitimate guarantee insuring his deposits against loss, at least up to a certain level, and might even had some expectation the government might help even beyond that level.

                  Which means he doesn't actually have to /care/ about their business model, or how well the FSA might be supervising them, or anything like that."

                  Sorry David, but no. Whilst he has a guarantee, that guarantee is only valid to the level of its assets. The losses were at such a level, the guarantee by itself would have fallen and people wouldn't have got their full entitlement. The same applies to insurance companies. Effectively, the guarantee scheme is insurance. If an insurance company receives claims beyond it's means, they get anything from nothing to a percentage depending.

                  "Not for someone who had actually checked them out to see they were covered and who was only storing reasonable amounts of their own money there."

                  No, he's checked them out and accepted a guarantee that looks good, but there are circumstances that could occur (such as did), that the guarantee could never cover. Therefore, the guarantee mitigates the risk to a point, but not entirely. The banking crisis was of such a magnitude that unless governments stepped in, all guarantees were effectively null and void.

                  1. david wilson

                    Well, given that the Treasury stepped in to give better terms in the Northern Rock case, and references frequently are to the system being government-backed, I think most people could be confident that, short of something which buggered the entire country, they'd be pretty safe.

                    Which, contrasted with MU. which at best looked a bit dubious, even a dodgy covered bank looks like a pretty safe bet.

                    Especially if there weren't any obvious better alternatives - if only one or two banks went tits-up, the government would step in.

                    If they all went tits-up and the government somehow ran away, you'd have lost out wherever you put your money, even if more in some places than others.

                    And the economy would be fucked anyway.

                    Choosing one of the dodgier websites on the internet (one of the ones that people might well have predicted was vastly more likely to attract trouble than many others both by its nature and its size) isn't necessarily comparable.

  29. Aggellos
    Stop

    El Reg i love the white papers...but when did 4chan invade

    Got to agree Steve plenty people here seem like they can’t read, but is like most of the topics about piracy on this forum

    Step 1 read headline.

    Step 2 rant.

    What i find odd is the reg users are meant to be professional people who work within the industry but reading the nonsense posted here i doubt that very much, so what people using a dodgy site are about to lose their stuff..Tuff.

    Piracy is one of the biggest burdens on the industry it destroyed the early computing market before the IBM PC rose up, everybody i knew with an amiga or like had every possible piece of decent software out there but had purchased none of it, i remember que’s of 50 or more at street markets buying bundles of discs of pirated software and by the bucket load for pennies.

    Everyone knew the main purpose behind MU was to facilitate the hosting of stolen material for others to download/Stream for free that’s how it made its money, denying this just makes you look stupid so anyone who had material legit or not stored on MU knew the risks and the fact the MU could only offer the service because of the cash it made from piracy kind of makes you an accomplice after the fact.

    All this stuff that media is to expensive...well don’t buy it that is how market forces work, but downloading it illegally then ranting about how about companies or governments trying to take action is Big bro gone mad is laughable at best and probably best kept to purgatorial shit pits of the socially challenged like 4chan.

    In my business and most companies we have done work for like HP, Computacenter etc ., anyone caught with illegal software or prosecuted for offences privately will have their employment terminated as we are all members of FAST.

    I am struggling to see anyone who would try to claim they are in anyway a professional with the sector defending criminals like DOT.COM.

    And jemma honey put me on ignore that way you might not need the pills.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Aggellos

      Reg readers were meant to be IT professionals, it's pretty obvious from most of the conspiracy/anti "the man" type of comments which crop up again and again that this is no longer the case. Also the lack of comments on any actual hard IT stories:New disk array out? 3 Comments all saying imagine how much porn it could hold. New tape library - tape is dead, I backup with rsync. etc. etc.

      1. david wilson

        @AC

        >>"Reg readers were meant to be IT professionals, it's pretty obvious from most of the conspiracy/anti "the man" type of comments which crop up again and again that this is no longer the case. "

        I think a lot of the readers of tech articles are still IT professionals.

        In some ways unfortunately, Reg comment threads do seem to get seriously high up Google rankings.

        It's not uncommon for me to be searching for more information on a very recent comment only to find that chucking a few relevant words into a search brings up the Reg thread with that post in on the first results page.

        People particularly into a single issue can find these threads maybe a bit too easily.

        >>"Also the lack of comments on any actual hard IT stories:New disk array out?3 Comments all saying imagine how much porn it could hold."

        Well, for a lot of hardware, there's not a huge amount to comment on, once given the facts.

    2. Ben Tasker

      @Agellos

      "anyone caught with illegal software or prosecuted for offences privately will have their employment terminated as we are all members of FAST".

      Not sure if you're in the UK, but if so I strongly suspect the latter would lose you a case of Unfair Dismissal at a tribunal. The former would be acceptable if it was being used at work (as that puts the business at risk) or indeed if they had nabbed a copy of software licensed to the business.

      But if someone chooses to use a dodgy copy of Office at home, and you fire them you're really not likely to be able to win that one. You have to show that their actions have led to a breakdown of trust - but it's gotta be relevant to the business. Saying we don't like Copyright infringers won't cut it, and being a member of FAST doesn't make that argument any easier. IANAL though so YMMV.

      I'd also say that a number of people aren't defending Dot. com, but are saying that those who put legitimate files on those servers now stand to lose out. Which is a fair assessment IMHO. But yeah, it does look like MU was aimed at facilitating copyright infringement. Responses need to be proportional though, so you can see why some people are upset?

      1. Aggellos

        No i can't see ben

        Ben i have fired 1 person in my time for being privately prosecuted, and just like other companies it is in the T/C's and if you dont sign them you ain't got no J.O.B, i remember a certain Senior manager being rocketed out the door at HP for plugging in a usb drive with a cheeky copy of MS select software on it.

        Any hint of it and PR and HR take the crash postion, turst me.

        1. Ben Tasker

          @Agellos

          The senior manager at HP presumably plugged into a work PC? Slightly different to using something at home and getting prosecuted.

          I'm not criticising your position, it's clearly something you feel very strongly about. Was just suggesting it's a possible risk depending on the circumstances (which are of course very important in themselves!)

          Where things get really confused though, is when you say "Copyright infringement" most people will think Music/Vids. There's no denying that those two industries have pursued some foolhardy tactics in the past, the problem being that those actions are then used to tarnish the other copyright reliant industries (and the BSA is no angel either).

          The reason that the action with MU was disproportionate is that there were legitimate users of the system (however foolhardy that may have been) who are now being harmed by the actions of the US. There are many appropriate resolutions the US could have used to avoid risking deletion/unavailable files etc (many of which have been posted in this thread somewhere). If Dotcom is guilty then he will be punished, but even if he isn't people have potentially lost access to some of their files (and I won't disagree if you point out they should have a backup!).

          Part of the reason PIPA/SOPA were so bad was because the Media industries were effectively trying to acquire a disproportionate level of control over the Internet. That's why people were upset there.

          All that said, I agree with comments you've made in other threads. If I write the software, I have a right to specify conditions for use (including price). If you want to use that software, you have to follow those conditions. Similarly if I want to release it under a BSD license, that's entirely my choice too. Too many people do want something for nothing, but don't make the mistake of assuming those buggers would have paid anyway (and there are potentially upsides to having your stuff pirated, albeit small).

  30. P. Lee
    Trollface

    What about other infringement?

    Is vlc illegal under the DMCA?

    Or pretty much any mp3 codec under linux?

    When will that be taken down? I feel righteous anger coming on....

This topic is closed for new posts.