Thread: Why Megaupload was really taken down

One of the things that I did not understand about the arrests was I saw a video where they were confiscating cars, etc...

Doesn't their need to be a trial and whatnot before the DOJ can confiscate assets? How is it that they took all the stuff?

Not saying they are innocent (I have no idea) I just didn't understand how their assets were already taken.

Yes the government is abusing is power, and is not only megaupload

SOPA power abuse: Copyright monopoly vs human rights:







aldo the source of the video is questionable there are some good arguments are being made about the kind of things gov is doing to people accused.

Originally Posted by GlobalWealth

Most people still believe the US court systems abides by 'innocent until proven guilty', but this is far from the truth.

As a side note, these guys were arrested in different countries from US arrest warrants. They were all non-US citizens or residents.

and correct me if im wrong, but if you are a usa citizen you need to pay income taxes even if you are working abroad...

This is an interesting story to follow. Kim Dotcom was making close to $150,000 per day.

His website claimed 4% of internet traffic.

It all happened about 15km North where I live. I often saw the Rolls Royce Phantom with 'GOD' number plate being driven by younger people.... now I know who the owner was!

Originally Posted by GlobalWealth

Only Americans.

Got to love the land of the free

Megaupload was taken down because its a file storing site which allowed people to download copyrighted files. The site was breaking the law.

What you should be asking why did it take so long, to be taken down.

Originally Posted by GlobalWealth

What gives that country the right to seize all of his assets before he is ever convicted of a crime?

Very poignant and very sobering question. We don't have the full story (and never will in reality), but you are right - a sobering glimpse at how power is wielded in reality and where we really stand in the grand scheme of things.

I was not aware of this story (don't follow mainstream media) and am grateful I stumbled upon it here.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by GlobalWealth

Regardless of whether they were breaking the law or not, what gives one country the right to arrest a citizen of another while he lives in yet another?

What gives that country the right to seize all of his assets before he is ever convicted of a crime?

Just to clarify, they've been arrested by New Zealand police, albeit at the request of the FBI, while residing in New Zealand, though some of those arrested are not New Zealand citizens. A little-reported part of the reason he is being held are the illegal firearms charges, by the way - one or more of their security staff are also being charged with illegal firearms breaches, and nothing to do with the Megaupload site.

As to the seizing of assets, it was done under the grounds of "evidence" which, unfortunately, here in New Zealand is so loosely defined that the Police can seize just about any item in your posession, or thought to be in your posession, around the time of the arrest or the alleged criminal act.

Personally I am not convinced yet one way or the other how this will (or should) pan out, but it was a fun morning with a raid going on nonetheless. Now someone has put an inflatable tank on the lawn of the home they were raided at, lol. The extradition hearing is on Feb 22nd I believe, so I will be interested to see how that pans out. Thus far I've seen only enough evidence to show they knew that the service was being used for illegal activity, so it will be interesting to see what can be presented to indicate they were directly participating in said activites.

Originally Posted by GlobalWealth

Yes, I understand that. My question is what gives the US extraterritorial rights to citizens and residents of another country? It isn't like dotcom was a threat to safety or a violent criminal.

I understand what you're asking, and I also don't agree with all aspects of how it has been handled thus far, but I am trying to clarify that he has *not* at this stage been arrested by any US department. He has been arrested by the New Zealand Police, which is where he has been residing. There will be an extradition hearing to determine whether he then gets handed over to US authorities or not.

That said, had the US not asked NZP to act against this individual, I doubt it would ever have happened. At the end of the day, it is because of the potential negative impact on NZ if we were to refuse a request from the US that it occurred, and I agree with the concept of where you're going with the question.

However, there are also a lot of situations where this could not happen - if he were in his native Germany for example, I believe it unlikely that he would be arrested by German authorities unless there were evidence presented that he had committed an illegal act within Germany.

I agree that, for a non-violent (and even non-material perhaps) crime, it seems over the top. But there is still so little understanding of the nature of technology-related infringements that the traditional approaches are taken - and I'd like to think that if someone off and murdered someone, they would still be arrested and tried even if they hopped on a plane and left the country. There needs to be *some* ability to "reach" internationally as it were by authorities, it just so happens sometimes such power may be abused. NZ is often all-too-quick to hop to it when certain of our bigger political and economic partners ask us to jump, mostly as a result of us being so small both in population and political and economic power.

like there´s not such a thing like rapidshare.... or tons like that

or the piratebay..... that actually one the war agains the big interests (so far)

like sopa or any bs bill like that is about copyrights looool

And yes government shouldn't be allowed to go against the law, and it opens a precedent (in that particular case) that can change the usa system of laws

so yes my friends this is very big