back to article Kim Dotcom victim of 'largest data MASSACRE in history'

Mega mogul Kim Dotcom says he's "in tears" after a Dutch hosting company wiped data from servers formerly used by his now-defunct Megaupload business, an act that he claims destroyed "critical evidence" in his long-running legal battle with the US government. On Wednesday, Dotcom took to his Twitter feed – his favorite …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you think data on a server you don't own is safe....

    If you think data on a server you don't own is safe, you are going to have a bad time.

    I'm not saying "Don't store data in the cloud", but don't think that cloud is anything other than a convenient way to make that data available to the world (and NSA) - it isn't a backup.

    If you don't have that data in multiple places that you control, then you are saying you don't value that data and don't care if it is deleted.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: If you think data on a server you don't own is safe....

      Leaving aside the case of the (alleged) millionaire copyright thief This should be a wake up for a lot of organisations.

      If you are the sort of domestic terrorist that might mean the DoJ has a quiet word with Visa and your account gets dropped, then any hosted email list, website, any evidence etc is destroyed, no warrant, no crime, no charges, probably not even an apology from visa - it's just the T&C

    2. Charles Manning

      If you think data in a server you **do** own is safe...

      then you are equally deluded.

      Most companies (small/medium) do not have the skills to run a server properly and would do far better to farm the job out to a cloud provider. Even those small companies that do have the skills, don't want to tie up personnel with the job of running the servers/doing backups etc and instead farm out the job to the cloud.

      Oh, MU was never really supposed to be a reliable cloud data storage. If your stuff was downloaded often, it stayed. If not, it was auto deleted. That isn't exactly a place to store business data or your lifetime of memorable snaps. It sounds remarkably like the storage model you would use to facilitate piracy.

    3. LarsG

      Re: If you think data on a server you don't own is safe....

      You'd have thought that the Dutch company would have got in contact with Dotcom and asked if he wanted his data or not. It is not as if they could not find him to contact him.

      I doubt it was US preseure but I find it most odd, unless they are trying to cover up something they have been party to.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Reliable hosting"

    LeaseWeb's tag is "Reliable hosting". Seems disingenuous to me, maybe the Dutch version of the advertising standards agency needs a few hundred complaints... ( http://www.easa-alliance.org/the-Netherlands/page.aspx/136 )

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Reliable hosting"

      Your argument is nonsensical. They kept the data for a year, without being paid, and without being asked to. Once you stop paying for a service, then you stop receiving that service. Leaseweb even contacted him before deleting it. I don't understand why you think they should have kept it any longer?

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: "Reliable hosting"

        According to other stories they deleted it in February, 2weeks after his account lapsed.

        It's just hitting the publicity fan now

        1. Gav
          Facepalm

          Re: "Reliable hosting"

          2 weeks after his account lapsed is 2 weeks in which he was not paying his bills. Why should they spend their money on keeping his data? Particularly when there was little sign of them ever being paid? Why should they shoulder responsibility for keeping the data, along with any unwelcome heat that may go with it? Why shouldn't they reuse the resources it's tying up on a paying customer?

          It may have been harsh for them to act quite so promptly, if that's what they did, but their actions are 100% justifiable.

          Deleting data that Megaupload's own T&Cs stated was not guaranteed to be kept is also not a "massacre". The company, and its users, worked on the basis that the data could be deleted at any time, for any reason. And lo; it was so.

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: "Reliable hosting"

      The words "Reliable hosting" say it all - you don't need to backup/archive servers/data to tape etc. to have reliable hosting. Also "reliable hosting" is probably the hosting version of "unlimited broadband"...

  3. Ben Liddicott
    Holmes

    """

    allegations of mass copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering

    """

    So that's:

    1 Copyright infringement in bulk

    2 Crimes committed in bulk, and in conjunction with others (i.e. a repeat of 1)

    3 Attempting to evade surveillance when moving money (presumably derived from copyright infringement). I.e. a repeat of count 1.

    I.e., he is accused of making money copyright infringement, in conjunction with others, and attempting to hide the fact.

    That's really only one count.

    1. btrower

      Accusation should not equal guilt

      Re: "That's really only one count"

      And at that it is only an accusation. Sure, in the United States, accusation is operationally equivalent to guilt. However, it should not be. We have both a right and a duty to demand better.

      1. asdf

        Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

        >Sure, in the United States, accusation is operationally equivalent to guilt

        WRONG! Everyone knows in the United States you are innocent until proven broke. Its only automatically equivalent to guilt if you are poor.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Everyone knows in the United States you are innocent until proven broke

          Brilliant point. Case in point today from Charlie Rose :-

          http://www.bloomberg.com/video/we-ve-developed-a-greedy-capital-culture-ferguson-O0fvQOrgSgOTLFfYK4UnNQ.html

        2. ecofeco Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

          WRONG! Everyone knows in the United States you are innocent until proven broke. Its only automatically equivalent to guilt if you are poor.

          Got that right.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

        > Sure, in the United States, accusation is operationally equivalent to guilt.

        Purely as a matter of interest, if you were to be accused of a crime, which country would you prefer to be in?

        The UK and Sweden are out since so many cretins believe that they are both subservient to US law (Assange). Perhaps you would prefer France where you only get a jury trial if the offence carries a sentence of 15 years or more.

        Maybe you would like an Eastern bloc country or one of the many European countries where trial by jury is the exception and even then the jury usually has several judges on it as well as members of the public. Perhaps India where jury trials have been abolished or any of the many Muslim countries where Sharia dominates.

        I know what my preference would be, even if I could only afford a public defender.

        1. Tapeador
          WTF?

          Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

          "Purely as a matter of interest, if you were to be accused of a crime, which country would you prefer to be in?

          The UK and Sweden are out since so many cretins believe that they are both subservient to US law (Assange). Perhaps you would prefer France where you only get a jury trial if the offence carries a sentence of 15 years or more."

          The UK has a European arrest warrant for Assange issued by Sweden. Not by the USA. The UK is a sovereign state in which the rule of law including the right to a fair trial is absolutely sacrosanct - much more so than the USA. That's why - unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals; that's why it has taken us 10 years and running to deport Abu Qatada.

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

            "The UK is a sovereign state in which the rule of law including the right to a fair trial is absolutely sacrosanct - much more so than the USA. That's why - unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals; that's why it has taken us 10 years and running to deport Abu Qatada."

            Absolutely wrong. I assume the increase in fixed penalty notices which incur an effective charge (fine goes up) if you dare question them. I assume you've missed all the strict liability laws that have been implemented recently. I assume you've missed all the secret trials that have been going on for years and the recent attempts to expand them. As to Abu Qatada, that has nothing to do with employing the best lawyers to defend the worst criminals. With the evidence available, even a certified cretin could have hung that one out for 10 years.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Accusation should not equal guilt@ Tapeador

            "unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals"

            You'll soon need to put that in the past tense, as the legal aid reforms mean that legal aid lawyers will be composed of large firms bidding to get contracts for the lowest possible cost, and often getting fixed fees that encourage them to bid on the basis of thinly spread and poorly paid lawyers, but then to only assign a legal clerk. As a result you can expect that the standard of justice in magistrates & crown courts to worsen, and conviction rates to rise (although they are already around 83%).

            Some might view spending money on legal aid to defend the 83% was a waste of time, and the majority of the rest probably got off purely on a technicality, but what price the number who are wrongly accused, and will no longer have adequate representation?

          3. Ian Yates
            Big Brother

            Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

            "That's why - unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals"

            It's worth keeping an eye on this, as the government are proposing to privatise (and de-regulate) the process, meaning that the companies making the most profit (i.e., with the least costs) will end up supplying such defense, and you don't get the option of who defends you.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Accusation should not equal guilt @ Ian Yates

              Certainly will be cost led, but the government isn't privatising anything - all legal aid was private sector provision, and in terms of choice that still exists - both before and after the changes you get the choice of who (on the legal aid roster) you want, although the number of firms offering legal aid will intentionally be a smaller number.

              1. Vic

                Re: Accusation should not equal guilt @ Ian Yates

                > both before and after the changes you get the choice of who (on the legal aid roster) you want

                There was a trailer on R4 the other day that said differently.

                I didn't catch the prgogramme itself, so I don't know whether that as fact or opinion...

                Vic.

        2. veti Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

          "Purely as a matter of interest, if you were to be accused of a crime, which country would you prefer to be in?"

          How about: The country where the supreme court has repeatedly ruled against the government over various details of Dotcom's prosecution, and its rulings have been promptly enforced, much to the general embarrassment of the government.

          I'll pick New Zealand, thanks very much.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

            > I'll pick New Zealand, thanks very much.

            You might want to ask Arthur Allan Thomas, David Doherty, David Bain, Rex Haig, Aaron Farmer, Tania Vini, Macushla Fuataha, Lucy Akatere and others about that,

          2. SleepyJohn
            Thumb Up

            Re: Accusation should not equal guilt - except for copyright infraction

            It is also worth noting that, as far as I know, the only people in this ludicrous and disgraceful debacle who have been found guilty of any illegal behaviour are those who attacked Dotcom. The NZ authorities were clearly fed a farrago of lies by the US government and instructed to 'put the frighteners on him' by staging a farcical Hollywoood show when apparently all they had to do was phone the Diplomatic cop in the mansion and he would have opened the door for them; but since then the country has redeemed itself noticeably by its fair and just treatment of the man. And however shady his past, or fat his stomach, he deserves the same justice as anyone else; or the country concerned is not fit to lick even his boots.

            But then the NZ government is presumably not being paid by those whose corrupt and lucrative business model is seriously threatened by his entrepreneurialism.

            “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: And I'll strip their wallets like a heartless whore”

            What a horrible country. I wouldn't hand over my worst enemy to them.

        3. JeffyPooh
          Pint

          Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

          Have you ever met members of the public? The same ones that would serve in your jury...

          A learned judge alone might be preferable to the unwashed masses.

          1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

            "Have you ever met members of the public? The same ones that would serve in your jury...

            A learned judge alone might be preferable to the unwashed masses."

            As the old saying goes: "The only people who do jury duty are those too stupid to get out of doing jury duty"

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

            > A learned judge alone might be preferable to the unwashed masses.

            So that would be somewhere like India then.

            > As the old saying goes: "The only people who do jury duty are those too stupid to get out of doing jury duty"

            I served on a Jury, not because I was to stupid to get out of it, but because I have a sense of civic responsibility (perhaps believing that you owe society something rather than society owes you is stupidity). You are correct in thinking that some of them are stupid, but then so are some of the general public. In the trials I participated in (3 of them) the jury never found anybody guilty even though, in at least one of the trials, the defendants probably were but there was enough reasonable doubt. Now you might argue that sometimes the innocent are found guilty and you are correct, but it is by far more likely that a jury trial will find the guilty not guilty. Of all the people I know, many of them have committed crimes, been caught, prosecuted and then found not guilty (I was born and raised in a shithole of a council estate and most of my school friends ended up in jail). I do not personally know a single person who was innocent and then found guilty. I do not personally know a single person who personally knows somebody who was innocent and then found guilty.

            I would opt for a jury trial every single time.

            1. Mad Mike

              Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

              @AC

              "I would opt for a jury trial every single time."

              So, you're basing your decision on the best system on the basis of the one most likely to let the criminal off? So, you're not actually worried about the guilty being found guilty and innocent being found innocent? Interesting. Very civic minded of you.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

                > So, you're basing your decision on the best system on the basis of the one most likely to let the criminal off?

                No. I am opting for the system I believe is weighted in favour of the individual rather than the state (or church).

                "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer." - Sir William Blackstone - Commentaries on the Laws of England 1765-1769

                This is one of the principles of the British and US legal systems.

                1. Mad Mike

                  Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

                  "No. I am opting for the system I believe is weighted in favour of the individual rather than the state (or church)."

                  I believe that is just what I said. You like the system most likely to let the individual off rather than allow the state to correctly apply penalties to those who transgress the law. You're also suggesting here that the judiciary are not independent of the state, or else, the judge would be equally likely to be in favour of the individual. So, you don't really believe in the British and US legal systems at all, as they both claim (please note 'claim') to have independent judiciaries.

                  I suspect you will also find that a jury will tend to act according to the newspaper they've read rather than being weighted in favour of the individual. If there's been a lot of kiddy fiddling cases recently in the press, anyone up on that sort of charge is far more likely to be found guilty by a jury.....

                  You're effectively suggesting justice by Ruper Murdoch, administered through his minions, the public!!

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

                    > You're also suggesting here that the judiciary are not independent of the state

                    The state is comprised of three branches: legislature (parliament), executive (Cabinet and Government Departments) and the Judiciary.

                    The Judiciary is not independent of the state since they are a branch of the state.

        4. Mad Mike

          Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

          "Perhaps you would prefer France where you only get a jury trial if the offence carries a sentence of 15 years or more."

          If you've ever seen the average person on a jury, I'd probably prefer a judge to make the decision. Of course, it depends to an extent on how much you think the stupidity of the jury will help your case, or how much their prejudice will. But, unless you've served on a jury and witnessed what goes on, don't assume jury is better.

        5. DaiKiwi

          Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

          "I know what my preference would be, even if I could only afford a public defender"

          Yeah, I know what mine would be too - Aussie, Canada and New Zealand all have better legal aid systems than the US. The NZ judges seem to be doing a pretty good job in keeping the prosecution honest in the Dotcom case too.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

        1. The Feds are mysterious, all powerful, and apparently not accountable.

        2. The Feds faceless and lack transparency.

        3. I will not lose sleep if a presumption of guilt, on the part of the Feds, goes with 1 and 2.

      4. Tapeador

        Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

        "And at that it is only an accusation. Sure, in the United States, accusation is operationally equivalent to guilt. However, it should not be. We have both a right and a duty to demand better."

        I see. So if I hold up grocery stores, the cops can't take away my guns or restrain me or keep me from fleeing or take the stolen cash off me until a jury says so?

        My point is this is a case about massive harm to copyright holders which is ongoing. Then there is the matter of the criminal charges against an individual. They're linked issues but require different handling.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: Accusation should not equal guilt

          "My point is this is a case about massive harm to copyright holders which is ongoing"

          Massive harm that the vested interests have been totally unable to prove by any reasonable method. Yes, they bluster about a lot and quote stupid figures created by even more stupid methods, but they've not ever come up with any real and sensible proof that they've suffering 'massive harm' from this. Some, yes, no doubt. But massive, absolute rubbish.

    2. Xenobyte
      Thumb Down

      Nonsense charges!

      As far as I know MU did not commit any copyright infringement themselves.

      It may be that others used the MU service for such things (we know some did) but MU is of course not responsible for what people use their storage for, just like the countless self-storage providers all over the world isn't responsible for what people put in their storage lockers - despite stolen goods being common, and even drug labs have been seen.

      Dunno why they want to pin everything on Kim Dotcom and MU... Maybe it's just easy and convenient targets?

  4. btrower

    The feds are not going to stop themselves

    Personally, I suspect that DotCom is guilty of something. However, that has yet to be proven in anything approaching a fair hearing. Even if it were, proving someone at my data center has done something wrong does not give you license to destroy my data.

    I would like to see a gruesomely draconian judgment against the people responsible that makes them pay what it would cost to restore that data, by typing it in by hand if it comes to it. If they can't afford the money, sit the bastards down at a keyboard and tell them to get to work.

    Depending upon what content is there, a gigabyte of data could take a lifetime to assemble. If that was typewritten ASCII text it would be more than 120 million words. A programmer would not produce that volume of source code in a working lifetime.

    Cretins unable to appreciate what is stored on hard disks should have absolutely no say at all what happens to it.

    1. asdf

      Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

      >Cretins unable to appreciate what is stored on hard disks

      Again its all in how the contract was written. Things get dicey when you are leasing somebody else's computer for a set time period. The real world equivalent is that show storage wars where after a set amount of time they sell your shit if quit paying for your storage unit.

      1. asdf

        Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

        Plus my guess is a majority of that data wasn't authorized by the copyright holder so its hardly Dotcom or his user's data. Not to defend the corrupt evil practices of the Sony's of the world but as in anything its best to pick your battles wisely and there isn't much about Dotcom that is wise.

        1. Tapeador
          Stop

          Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

          "Not to defend the corrupt evil practices of the Sony's of the world"

          What are those evil practices? Paying for artists to work to create joy for you? Oh yeah, really evil.

          1. veti Silver badge
            Flame

            Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

            "What are those evil practices? Paying for artists to work to create joy for you? Oh yeah, really evil."

            Since you ask, Sony's "evil" practices include, but are not limited to:

            - Being one of the creators and prime movers of the scheme that limits DVD playback according to where in the world you bought your DVD player (even though copyright law gives no right to 'restrict the equipment on which a legally owned copy of a work can be accessed')

            - Being one of the prime movers behind the 'anti-circumvention' laws that, globally, convert the abovementioned (stolen) right into a pillar of copyright law

            - Developing and enforcing the same system on Blu-Ray

            - Putting rootkits on its CDs

            - When called on rootkits, defending their actions with the argument that "users shouldn't mind"

            - Building DVD players that prevent you from fast-forwarding (or pausing, for that matter) through copyright notices.

            All of these are things Sony did entirely voluntarily, wilfully putting itself right in the forefront of efforts to screw the law-abiding consumer at every turn.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Rootkit was itself a mass copyright violation

              You missed the part about the rootkit containing GPL code without following the terms of the license, so Sony were engaged in mass copyriht violation for commercial purposes.

              1. Mad Mike

                Re: Rootkit was itself a mass copyright violation

                There are several points here that people to have missed.

                Firstly, Dotcom did not willingly stop paying the bill. It was not his fault the company stopped being paid and therefore was storing data for nothing. That was the fault of the NZ police, FBI etc. who raided him. I always find it amazing that in a reasonably moral world, someone who has had nothing proved against him and is as yet not guilty of any crime can have everything taken from him and then destroyed. If the relevant authorities fail to get a guilty verdict, he should really be returned to the same condition after the trial etc. as before. Therefore, the authorities should pay this company to keep the data or arrange suitable backups and storage etc. so that in the event he is not found guilty, he can be returned to his prior condition.

                Secondly, a very large chunk of the evidence to be used in any trial will be on those servers. After all, the trial would basically be about the content of his 'service'. Therefore, if you destroy (or allow to be destroyed) all the data, you are effectively destroying any chance of a trial. Therefore, by allowing this, one has to question how much the authorities ever really wanted a trial and whether one will actually occur.

                Finally, many of the actions against Dotcom have been declared illegal or against normal process etc., including the armed assault on his rented mansion. The firearms charges have been shown to be rubbish etc.etc.

                1. david wilson

                  @Mad Mike

                  >>"Firstly, Dotcom did not willingly stop paying the bill. It was not his fault the company stopped being paid and therefore was storing data for nothing."

                  It certainly wasn't their fault.

                  Why should they pay the price for someone else's dubious business model?

                  What was he actually doing to try and keep the data, beyond supposedly asking a company to keep data for free for an indefinite period?

                  >>"Secondly, a very large chunk of the evidence to be used in any trial will be on those servers. After all, the trial would basically be about the content of his 'service'. Therefore, if you destroy (or allow to be destroyed) all the data, you are effectively destroying any chance of a trial."

                  You're not destroying any chance of a trial.

                  You're not even meaningfully altering the chances of a fair trial unless

                  a) the Leaseweb data contained the only copies of important company records which would exonerate the company

                  b) an argument was to be made on the overall balance of types of hosted content, and the Leaseweb data for some reason involved user content seriously different in terms of legit vs. dodgy content to the US-hosted data, with the US servers being 'dirtier'.

                  Would a US case actually have to pay much attention to the types of content hosted elsewhere, if they could show some threshold had been crossed with respect to US-hosted data?

                  Isn't the hosting in the USA a major justification for jurisdiction being claimed over MU in the first place?

                  >>"Finally, many of the actions against Dotcom have been declared illegal or against normal process etc."

                  Maybe it's better to distinguish between those two categories - there's a huge difference between rights being violated and the police being heavy-handed and/or overcautious when making an arrest.

                  If anything, I think it might tend to draw attention away from the former when the latter is mixed in with them, especially if the latter is can be more arguably a matter of opinion.

                  Possibly time will tell who is telling the truth regarding them notifying him about the deletion or not, though if they had no legal requirement to host it for free, it's not clear why they would need to avoid notifying him.

                  If they'd said 'unless your arrears are settled in the next N days, your data is at risk', what could he have done to stop them?

                  If there were legal actions he could have taken in NL to prevent the deletion, if he really needed the data he could have presumably taken such actions whenever he felt like it?.

                  Similarly, if his lawyers had made various requests for the data to be kept, what responses did they get to such requests, or did they treat no response as some kind of agreement?

                  If the company had been asked but hadn't given any serious assurances of retention, that would have been cause for most people to worry, let alone cause for half-decent lawyers to worry..

                  If they have given assurances they have now broken, I assume that Dotcom will soon be publicising that quite widely, and providing the evidence.

                  1. Mad Mike

                    Re: @Mad Mike

                    @David Wilson.

                    "It certainly wasn't their fault."

                    I never said it was their fault. However, it wasn't Dotcoms either. It was the fault of those who claim he broke the law, but have so far pitifully failed to prove anything at all.

                    "Why should they pay the price for someone else's dubious business model?"

                    You're judging this before the evidence is presented. He only has a 'dubious business model' if he is found guilty of copyright violation in a court of law. His business model was working perfectly well until someone came in with jackboots, making accusations (so far not proven) and confiscating everything.

                    "What was he actually doing to try and keep the data, beyond supposedly asking a company to keep data for free for an indefinite period?"

                    Given that he had all of his assets frozen, there is nothing he can do. I think you should redirect this question to the NZ government, police etc. and FBI who got all his money frozen. You can't blame someone for doing nothing when you take away every option of doing something he has!!

                    "You're not destroying any chance of a trial.

                    You're not even meaningfully altering the chances of a fair trial unless

                    a) the Leaseweb data contained the only copies of important company records which would exonerate the company

                    b) an argument was to be made on the overall balance of types of hosted content, and the Leaseweb data for some reason involved user content seriously different in terms of legit vs. dodgy content to the US-hosted data, with the US servers being 'dirtier'.

                    Would a US case actually have to pay much attention to the types of content hosted elsewhere, if they could show some threshold had been crossed with respect to US-hosted data?

                    Isn't the hosting in the USA a major justification for jurisdiction being claimed over MU in the first place?"

                    As soon as you delete any of the data, you are giving him the option of claiming the crucial piece of evidence that proves his innocence was in there. You can't prove it wasn't and therefore, there is reasonable doubt. Only by presenting all the data (or everything requested) can you show his crucial piece of evidence doesn't exist and therefore remove the reasonable doubt. Just because the US data showed copyright violation (in principle), doesn't mean that somewhere in the other data, critical emails between him and the US justice department (for instance) didn't exist that show he was helping them!! That's why the US has preservation of evidence laws (as do most countries).

                    As to the actions against Dotcom being illegal. An awful lot of the action taken by the NZ authorities against Dotcom have been ruled illegal in the NZ courts, including seizure of at least some of his accounts etc. The raid on his house has been ruled illegal, so have the gun charges (which were always a joke) and the fact the NZ police seemed to think they were making a film version of 'Die Hard in New Zealand'. So, the NZ courts have declared his inability to pay the account was actually caused by illegal state actions...........

                    So, who's to blame for this data being lost? Certainly not Dotcom. He couldn't have paid the bill as he had no money as it had illegally been seized.

                    1. david wilson

                      Re: @Mad Mike

                      >>"I never said it was their fault. However, it wasn't Dotcoms either."

                      That doesn't seem like <>their</> problem.

                      >> >>"Why should they pay the price for someone else's dubious business model?"

                      >>"You're judging this before the evidence is presented"

                      I said dubious, not illegal.

                      MU does seem to have at least been in a grey area. Even if it was (or thought it was) operating on the right side of the law, it seems to have been close to the edge, which for me would make it 'dubious'.

                      >>"As soon as you delete any of the data, you are giving him the option of claiming the crucial piece of evidence that proves his innocence was in there."

                      Was he actually requesting via his lawyers that specific crucial pieces of killer evidence were kept?

                      Was he loudly claiming via his various channels that there was crucial data on there which proved his innocence but which he had no assurance would be kept?

                      >>"You can't prove it wasn't and therefore, there is reasonable doubt. "

                      Surely, in all manner of trials people make claims about evidence which would exonerate them but which is missing, with the extent to which that creates reasonable doubt being left up to the jury or judge[s]?

                      >>"Just because the US data showed copyright violation (in principle), doesn't mean that somewhere in the other data, critical emails between him and the US justice department (for instance) didn't exist that show he was helping them!!"

                      He could claim there was evidence that he was being helpful to the government to the extent that that justified any apparent breaches of the law but that they were persecuting him anyway?

                      I could see that being a difficult sell, especially if he waited to make the claim which would make many of his problems go away until after the evidence for it had gone.

                      >>"So, who's to blame for this data being lost? Certainly not Dotcom. He couldn't have paid the bill as he had no money as it had illegally been seized."

                      Well, as I said, I guess more may become clear when data is available regarding communications between his lawyers and the hosting company.

                      If he can back up all the claims he's made and the hosting company can't show him to be wrong, that might put him in a better position.

                      If the hosts can back up all they said, that might put him in a worse position.

                      Personally I would have thought it better if the data could have been kept, at least long enough and with sufficient access to data to allow Dotcom to be able either to obtain good defence evidence or to obviously fail to obtain it, but I wouldn't expect the hosting company to have to pay for that.

              2. Mad Mike

                Re: Rootkit was itself a mass copyright violation

                "You missed the part about the rootkit containing GPL code without following the terms of the license, so Sony were engaged in mass copyriht violation for commercial purposes."

                Yes. The FBI etc. should really be raiding Sony's datacentres and confiscating their servers to understand just how far this copyright 'theft' has gone before prosecuting Sony for breaching other peoples copyright. If that brings Sony to bankruptcy in the meantime, according to what they've done to Dotcom, that should be just fine.

                What? It hasn't happened? That must means that some peoples copyright is worth more than other peoples copyright!!

            2. FutureShock999
              Boffin

              Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

              Let me point out that there are valid reasons for Region coding that actually benefit consumers...

              1) it allows labels to sell content at variable price points - meaning that a DVD can (and usually does) sell for less in poor 3d world countries than it does in London. Given the huge disparity in income between say, London and Mexico City, isn't that morally just? Why should poorer countries have to spend a higher portion of their incomes on entertainment? Region coding ALLOWS variable pricing, so that poorer countries can be charged less, and yet not have those same disks re-imported to richer countries - because if that happened, labels would be forced to resort to one, world-wide price. You may not LIKE paying a higher price - but I kind of think there is some social justice there. Most people reading this English-language, techie site come from what are very privileged backgrounds in a global context - if we can't see that perhaps we should be charged more, then perhaps we should take a long look in the mirror.

              2) It allows differing release schedules around the globe, which allows content to be released on DVD earlier without messing up the theatrical releases in other regions (like Southern Hemishere). WIthout region coding, many blockbusters would be released onto DVD only AFTER they had run in all major regions, which basically would add months onto the DVD release schedule. So having Region coding allows us that hate theatres to actually get it (legally) on DVD several months earlier.

              Yeah, I move around a LOT, and I have to buy unlocked DVD players from Oppo to play a lot of my stuff. It is inconvenient, and a pain. But MOST people don't move as much as I do (3 continents in the last 8 years), and the benefits to most DVD-lovers of not having to wait more months for a release onto DVD, and of paying prices that are perhaps more appropriate for their locality, kind of make sense if you think about them.

              The problem is that most people haven't thought these trade-offs through. One is moral, and one is self-benefiting. But at least recognise that there are trade-offs...

              1. Mad Mike

                Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                @FutureShock999.

                1) I hate to tell you, but a company does not exist to do morally correct things. That's the job of the law. A company exists to make money......pure and simple. DVD region coding simply allows them to overcharge those living in more affluent areas, thereby increasing profits. Trying to suggest the companies are trying to act 'morally' is simply laughable. Also, these same companies often go on and complain about import tarriffs in some countries and about free trade etc., whilst implementing exactly the sorts of technologies that prevent that. If (as many of them suggest) free trade is so good, why should I not be able to buy my DVDs from any country on earth?

                2) Differing release schedules around the world.........Why do films need differing release schedules? Simple answer again is to maximise revenues.

                1. FutureShock999
                  Holmes

                  Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                  Stop me from laughing on the floor!!!

                  "Overcharge those living in more affluent areas?!?!?!" What, you think that without Region coding the labels would suddenly drop the prices in affluent countries?! Yet at the same time you try to "tell me" that companies exist to make money - wtf are you thinking, because you are contradicting yourself.

                  Without Region Coding, ALL consumers would pay just about the the maximum cost - because they make so much more in revenue from 1st World sales than 3d World sales. The only "money maximising" strategy is to raise the price to nearly 1st World levels, shaving off a little bit so that it is JUST not worth it to ship disks from Mexico City to London. That would earn the labels a leeeeetle less than they make now, however, because they would earn more per disk, but sell fewer 3d World disks. But if they set prices equally near 3d World levels, that earns them a LOT less than they make now, because there will be no real surge in buying in the 1st World if you drop the prices by even a third. So in the end, Region Coding has fuck all effect on pricing in the 1st World. It stays the same. But 3d World countries get killed.

                  And if you don't know why labels have varying release schedules for blockbusters, you probably shouldn't be posting on this topic, because it indicates a lack of basic media knowledge. HINT: they time the major releases around when families and students have free time to SEE them in the theatres....summer holidays and Christmas holidays, sometimes Easter. BUT - that CHANGES around the world, notably on either side of the equator. So they always invert the release schedules for the North and South hemispheres for major blockbusters. The OTHER reason they do that is for movies still shown on actual film, not digital releases. Staggering the openings allow them to print a lot fewer copies of expensive movie-grade film to project in theatres, as they can show it in Europe, ship those copies to the US/Canada, and then ship them to Asia. WIth more movies heading towards digital projection, that will diminish as a reason for major releases, but will still be important for art-house films and foreign films, because smaller theatres are not going digital projection too soon, nor is much of Asia due to costs.

                  "I hate to tell you" - don't try to school me on business, especially media, advertising, or marketing. It's something I have done for, oh, a few decades. I am happy to have discussions, but not in a condescending tone - it will be answered in kind.

                  1. veti Silver badge
                    Trollface

                    Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                    If Sony wants to charge less for the version of its movie that's dubbed into Urdu, that's fine with me. I'll even undertake not to buy it just because it's a fraction of the price of the English version.

                    As for varying release schedules for blockbusters, it may surprise you to learn that Christmas in the southern hemisphere occurs on the same day as in the north. It's just that it's in midsummer. More pertinently, pick a blockbuster movie and look at its release dates (handily listed on IMDB): you'll see that the release is effectively staggered over anything from 2 to 6 weeks, and that staggering has no real relation to what hemisphere you're in. Example: Iron Man 3 released to cinemas:

                    UK: 18 April

                    Australia: 24 April

                    France: 24 April

                    New Zealand: 25 April

                    Vietnam: 26 April

                    USA: 3 May

                    Turkey: 3 May

                    Pakistan: 17 May

                    Given that the entire spread is less than two months, I'm not clear why that should affect DVD releases anyway.

                    "Invert the release schedules for North and South hemispheres" - you're talking from between your right and left hemispheres.

                2. Probe
                  WTF?

                  Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                  So it's ok if I pimp children as long as I make a profit?

                3. Probe

                  Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                  Addenum - just re-read your post , the job of the law is to make laws - laws have fuck all to do with morality.

                  1. Probe
                    Unhappy

                    Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                    Reply to myself to say the above was addressed to Mad Mike but the reply system appears to be broken (or possibly my brane).

              2. peter 45
                Angel

                Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                @FutureShock999

                "variable price points - meaning that a DVD can (and usually does) sell for less in poor 3d world countries"

                You mean that I pay extra in order to subsidise 3rd world consumers....rather than the entertainment companies gouging me for a product costing pence to produce, just because they can. Oh. Ok then. Makes me feel a lot better knowing that.

                Sorry, got to go. Ive just seen some fairies at the bottom of my garden

                1. david wilson

                  Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                  >>"You mean that I pay extra in order to subsidise 3rd world consumers....rather than the entertainment companies gouging me for a product costing pence to produce, just because they can. Oh. Ok then. Makes me feel a lot better knowing that."

                  You're not actually 'losing out by subsidising' anyone unless the DVD selling in a poorer country is being sold such that you'd be financially better off if such sales didn't take place.

                  As it is, the situation seems to be that you'd be in the same position, but the film company would make less money.

                  Less champagne for the executives, no doubt, but maybe also less money for other stuff (like taking the odd gamble on a less-obviously-commercial film).

                  If I was to pay £30 for an evening meal in a restaurant which used a significant amount of its takings to fund free meals for the homeless, I'd be subsiding meals for the homeless and possibly if there was no feeding of the homeless the price for me to eat might have been lower, though possibly the owner would just have made more profit.

                  If they did a lunchtime deal which charged pensioners half price, as long as the marginal cost of providing that meal was less than what the pensioner paid, I wouldn't really be 'losing out by subsidising them'.

                  I could consider myself to be paying a larger contribution to the fixed costs of the business and/or profits, or saying that 'without people like me the business would fold and the pensioner would have to eat elsewhere', but if the pensioners all buggered off elsewhere it wouldn't seem likely to make my meal any cheaper.

                2. FutureShock999

                  Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                  The least expensive movie to produce that I can think of, that was any good, was Robert Rodriguez's "El Mariachi", in which he basically used his friends to act in the streets of Mexico. The problem was, it was so BAD they eventually had to get real actors in, with real cameras, to re-make it for the American market. I happen to like both versions, btw. But most American viewers wanted NOTHING to do with the original.

                  The least expensive hit Hollywood movie I know of (and love) was "The Usual Suspects", which was made, almost blindly, for $6 million at the time. With a bunch of "out of favour" or "has been" actors working for less than scale, produced from a script written in a few weeks, from an idea that was a random story made-up while standing in line for the Academy Awards, it is hard to get more results for less. But STILL - $6 million for basic production costs. Then they had to market it, which cost them initially almost as much as the film to produce.

                  Now...that's the LOW end of what it costs to produce a movie and bring it to market. The producers were out $10 million before it was ever shown in a theatre - on a risk that people would even want to watch Chazz Palimintery as a star (and that was a loooong shot). So how you get "a few pence to produce" is way beyond me...are you buying media, or the art that is ON the media? Because is sounds like you are confusing the two, badly....

              3. Brenda McViking
                Meh

                Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

                Nice benefits - prevention of the global free market through protectionism and pointless and artificial delays in recieving media.

                These institutions are global now, and have been for decades. They need to adapt their business models, not introduce more (easily curcumventible) barriers. I welcome the day where we get global releases and global pricing, and no more artificial meddling and unnecessary restriction. The internet allows it. We have all the necessary infrastructure. All that is needed is for the dinosaurs to die out. A balance will be struck, one way or the other, but as the internet becomes the distribution system, and treats barriers as damage around which it actively heals and re-routes itself, then I don't need any convincing that the media industry as it currently stands is on the losing side.

          2. FutureShock999
            Pirate

            Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

            Ask boy-band JLS how "evil and corrupt" those Sony practices are. JLS has gotten very, very rich off their Sony deal, and are in the Sony London offices managing their own marketing and publicity much of the week. The fact that they do it themselves means that Sony takes a smaller cut, but provides them help when the ask (such as tour organisation, etc.). The point is that JLS and Sony _agreed_ to a complex set of terms that worked for both of them.

            WIth the easy availability of alternative distribution models for music (i.e., ANY band can host their own website and have content available for download to their fans, and many do), no band HAS to sign to a major label - or any label. Labels now have to offer some value to the artists...otherwise their is no reason to sign up with them.

            Not sure how merely doing what makes the most money for the artists that sign with them, and even taking an agreed-up cut, is "corrupt". It might be monopolistic, it might be unkind to your wallet, etc. But you have to remember that the labels represent THE ARTISTS, not the consumers, and their behaviour needs to be judged against that. It is true that labels and artists do have differences that end up in court, but the same can be said of many, many business dealings...

            1. Mad Mike

              Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

              I think people are merely pointing out that Sony are actively and with profit in mind, doing exactly what they attack other people for doing. The difference is that as 'the big man', they can call in the big boys (Feds etc.) and actively attack the little man, whereas the reverse is not true. However, they are violating copyright law in exactly the same way, and appear to simply not care.

              It's never easy to support a company against some bad practice when the company are actually doing exactly the same thing to others.

          3. ecofeco Silver badge
            Holmes

            Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

            What are those evil practices?

            You seem to to have not heard about the their DRM fisco.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

        2. Steve Brooks

          Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

          And you would prove this how? By examining the data of course...umm, what data? Your guess, since there is no evidence to present that can ever prove it to be correct, is very likely libelous. Want to defend yourself, just present the "evidence" in court, what? Can't? The problem with these fat sleazeballs is that they have very much the same rights under law that you and I do, including bringing court cases against people who accuse them of crimes without evidence, the data should have been preserved, if only so that you could defend yourself!

      2. Robert Helpmann??
        Childcatcher

        Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

        Again its all in how the contract was written.

        No, it is not all about the contract. In this particular case, it is also about evidentiary law. The servers in the Netherlands fall under a different jurisdiction that those in the US. It should not be surprising that the two are treated differently. Also, there is no mention of backup media for the data. If the data itself is important and it is no longer on the servers, could it be restored elsewhere if needed?

        One point of US law that does rankle: if there is the presumption of innocence on the part of the accused, how can the accused afford a realistically reasonable defense team if their assets are frozen? I don't think most public defenders would be up for this case.

        1. peter 45
          Trollface

          Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

          "how can the accused afford a realistically reasonable defense team if their assets are frozen?"

          Well how else do you think they are going to get the guilty* to go to jail.

          (* or innocent, doesn't really matter with the Mercan justice system)

        2. Rabbit80

          Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

          "Also, there is no mention of backup media for the data. If the data itself is important and it is no longer on the servers, could it be restored elsewhere if needed?"

          Some of the deleted servers were backup servers.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      let me paraphrase that for you ..

      Cretins unable to appreciate how valuable their data is and leave it in the hands of third parties have absolutely no say at all what happens to it.

    3. david wilson

      Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

      >>"I would like to see a gruesomely draconian judgment against the people responsible that makes them pay what it would cost to restore that data, by typing it in by hand if it comes to it. If they can't afford the money, sit the bastards down at a keyboard and tell them to get to work."

      If data exists elsewhere, it doesn't need to be restored to a 'poor-man's backup' location.

      If it doesn't exist elsewhere, then it's gone.

      >>"Cretins unable to appreciate what is stored on hard disks should have absolutely no say at all what happens to it."

      What would you call someone who uses a free service as their sole backup location, let alone their sole storage location?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Windows

        Re: The feds are not going to stop themselves

        "What would you call someone who uses a free service as their sole backup location, let alone their sole storage location?"

        I would call them a

        Computer

        User

        Not

        Technical

        Why, what would you call em?

  5. asdf

    as always with dotcom

    Granted I hate the media companies more than Dotcom because unlike him they own senators but he is hardly some paragon and as usual what he says is full of spin. After all didn't megaupload tend to delete user data not heavily downloaded rather quickly anyway? It always seems as more a get the latest hot pirated thing today instead of store your crap for years kind of a service. Still this case is another glaring example of how when it comes to being a copyright pimp Obama is even more extreme than W Bush was. Even Bush didn't use Homeland Security to go after domains just for copyright violations.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "We can't help but scratch our heads a bit at that one, though. LeaseWeb is based in the Netherlands, but Carpathia is headquartered in Dulles, Virginia – so presumably the US DoJ would have an easier time starting its data-deletion campaign there,"

    If I were the DOJ and it looked like I was losing; I'd start with the data I had less control over; plus you get a few plausible deniability points. They can lean on Carpathia anytime.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Possibly its more likely that any company holding data on US servers is going to be obliged to keep it safe as otherwise they might get hauled up before a US judge for tampering with evidence etc etc. Meanwhile a company in another country is probably not concerned by these issues and be more concerned with the financial implications of keeping many petabytes of data of servers that aren't being accessed and can't be used for other (paying) customers so maybe they waited until some "data/accounts not accessed for x moths may be deleted without notification" clause in their contract could be activated

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The DOJ can't get into trouble for it in the Netherlands.

      In the US, they would probably be breaking several laws.

  7. Frank Zuiderduin

    Don't believe EVERYTHING this guy says...

    Sorry, but in this case I think he's lying. He must have realised he screwed up after Leaseweb's people contacted his people about the servers and never got an answer, so he's never going to admit it's his own fault.

  8. Alan Esworthy
    Alert

    Shrobbery

    "But seeing Uncle Sam lurking behind every shrub is nothing new for Dotcom."

    And nothing new for anyone with more than four gray cells hooked up in parallel. OK, OK, maybe not literal shrubbery, but we now know that Uncle tracks phone calls; email; web browsing; your location by mobile phone tracking, car plates, and face recognition; payment card transactions, medical records, employment history (including of course earnings), bank transactions, stock market transactions, home energy use (via "smart" meters), school/university history; and I'm sure there's more that just doesn't come to mind.

    They may not need to be behind every shrub to do all that, but they clearly are everywhere they need/want to be.

    1. xpusostomos

      Re: Shrobbery

      Yeah, it's not paranoia when they really are after you, and arrive on your doorstep in helicopters in the middle of the night to take you away.

      1. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: Shrobbery

        +1, but you forgot to mention that it appears to have been an armed assault on his residence

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Dotcom has used his Twitter feed as his personal bully pulpit"

    No bias at all here then...

    (twat)

  10. Quxy
    Headmaster

    Twitter as "bully pulpit"?

    Given that a bully pulpit as commonly understood is a "position sufficiently conspicuous to provide an opportunity to speak out and be listened to", how does a private Twitter account qualify? The position of POTUS is a bully pulpit. Eric Schmidt may have a bully pulpit as executive chairman of Google. But I can't see how Kim Dotcom is in a conspicuous enough position so that anyone other than those following his Twitter feed will hear what he has to say.

    1. Pookietoo

      Re: can't see how anyone other than those following his Twitter feed will hear

      I bet you don't follow his Twitter account, yet here you are reading about it and commenting on it.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He sure does pull...

    ...some crazy ideas out of his arse that boy dotcom. Next he'll announce that space aliens are chasing him. Kids, this is what happens to drug addicts.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cry me a river

    Please, keeping PB's of data costs a lot of money. I'm surprised it took them so long to free up the tons of disks used in storing MU's data. It sucks but hey, you haven't paid the bill in ages so it's your fault YOO lost YOUR customer's data.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cry me a river

      In this case, it's "MU haven't paid the bill in ages, despite wanting to and having enough money, because a judge in America said they couldn't". That's not MU's fault.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Cry me a river

        Though as the story is presented, it seems noone even rung the Dutch to say - "whoah-there" or "the cheque's in the post".

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    It's the "Red Wedding" of illicit data!!

    Leaseweb = The Freys

    U.S. government = Tywin Lannister?

    (Now where's that damn dragon icon?)

  14. TeeCee Gold badge
    Mushroom

    '...Kim Dotcom says he's "in tears"...'

    There's nothing worse than seeing a fatboy blub.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, I am afraid that his plaintive (t)witterings have utterly failed to convince me that Kim Bellend actually gives two shits about this.

    Of all the things he could have done here, lounging on a sofa and stuffing his face while thumbing 140-character winges to the sheep is probably the least constructive.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Awww diddums

    Did kimmy wimmy lose all his data? What a crying shame. I'll be bothered when someone undeserving loses something important, not when some cheating slimeball of a felon like DotCom feels he's hard done by!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Consider yourself bothered.

      I did lose data. One of my vendors used megaupload to receive files for support.

  16. Down not across

    Thou protest too much?

    Or he could be making all the fuss about the lost data to be evidence in his defense to bolster his position of innocence whilst the lost data could have very well been incriminating.

  17. Parax

    so presumably the US DoJ would have an easier time starting its data-deletion campaign there,

    No.

    US law applies in the US, the DoJ would be liable for its "Advice", especially if it related to destruction of evidence for a US trial.

    US law does not apply in Holland, it would be easy for the DoJ to say "do you want to be involved in this protracted and drawn out case? if you do preserve the evidence for us, but we can't force you..."

  18. austerusz

    "so presumably the US DoJ would have an easier time starting its data-deletion campaign there, rather than trying to pressure a company based in a foreign country where it has no jurisdiction?" - actually it's quite the opposite.

    A US company can be coerced under US law but at the same time can use US law to defend itself. With the prospective trial ongoing, Carpathia has the incentive to resist (while the FBI doesn't have much cause to push for a judge order for example to delete data).

    On the other hand, a foreign company rests in the limbo of international law, various treaties or might simply give in simply to gain some favors with a US organization. I can tell you from experience that in my country if you are a US company or organization, all doors are open. If you have an FBI badge, jurisdiction be damned, people will do anything for you (free lunch included) - as long as they are not the targets of your investigation. I know a company who didn't produce accounting logs for the local police with a warrant, but they made a copy for a lone FBI agent over coffee (not illegal technically - against company policy sure but if it weren't followed by the media, there is little change the board would've found out about the FBI agent).

    1. david wilson

      @austerusz

      If the USA effectively can turn off the money tap, it's not obvious why they would need to do anything more in order for the data to end up being deleted.

      Whether they should have allowed company funds to be spent maintaining the data is certainly something that there are arguments for and against.

      Someone might wonder what use the data was to Dotcom:

      Would having the deleted data have helped his case?

      Would having the data deleted have helped his case?

      If it would make little difference either way, if he considered the MU business lost, does losing the data increase the loss, and if he considered the business (or at least the money in it) recoverable, what's in it for him to have money spent keeping data that isn't making him any money?

  19. Velv
    FAIL

    Who's paying?

    The clue's in the first paragraph: data from his "now-defunct Megaupload business"

    So if nobody is paying to host the data, why shouldn't they delete it? There was no court order to prevent them deleting it. If Kim felt it was crucial for his defence he should either of got a court order to force them to keep it (which is unlikely), or paid for them to keep it.

    As an aside, this is another great example of the pitfalls of cloud - even if you've got agreements with your supplier, who has your supplier got supply agreements with.

    There's nothing wrong with using cloud services. But clouds have a habit of being blown away.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Destroying evidence is a crime

    Enough said. Even if there was dubious data on the servers, they probably destroyed countless files of legitimate data which had not backup.

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Re: Destroying evidence is a crime

      But since the charges against DotCotton and Megaupload are being brought in the US how could it be a crime to delete data in Europe? Do engage brain before spouting.

  21. ecofeco Silver badge
    Holmes

    Did the Feds do it?

    Is this a trick question?

  22. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    So as I understand it he's storing data on somebody else's hardware and isn't paying a penny for the privilege, and cuts up all tearful when the server's owners decide to use them for something else?

    And how does this compare with Megaupload themselves deleting their own users data without warning? Surely Megaupload's supporters are aware this has been known to happen. And the usual response to these occurrences? You should have kept a backup of your data. Didn't it occur to Mr Dotcotton that he should have kept a backup and not expected the hosting companies to do it for him?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like