Update on the Megaupload case, plus bonus Google

Mar 20, 2012 23:02

Two articles related to the Megaupload case. The first is a week old, and the second is from a couple days ago.

Megaupload boss: Site popular among US government users
May be tempted to name names in Justice, Senate

The boss of the recently shut-down Megaupload file-sharing site claims that his records show plenty of US government users, ( Read more... )

google, internet/net neutrality/piracy

Leave a comment

Comments 10

tilmon March 21 2012, 04:27:38 UTC
I am confused. Aren't amicus briefs often partisan? Aren't they specialist information that the court may not otherwise hear, and therefore will be partisan to the specialist's viewpoint? If the court rejects Google's amicus briefing, we'll know that the fix is already in.

And I am looking forward to Dotcom revealing the names of US federal officials who used his service. It's very interesting to me that the federal government wants to delete all the files. Generally, it's considered a bad thing to destroy what is supposedly the evidence. Makes me think this isn't about infringing downloads at all.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

tilmon March 21 2012, 04:52:38 UTC
Thanks. I didn't know about having to get court permission, but I guess generally courts accept amicus briefs despite what the contending parties have to say about it?

Reply


the_glow_worm March 21 2012, 04:41:07 UTC
If the names they are about to name belong to Congressmen who voted for SOPA or the lead investigators who closed down Megaupload or something like that, I would be all for it. But the ambiguity of the statements made it seem like the accounts probably belong to staffers and bureaucrats. I am not down for that invasion of privacy.

Reply


aviv_b March 21 2012, 04:48:42 UTC
Everybody used Megaupload/download, that's not the point. It's the paying people to upload desired content and not complying with take-down requests that's the issue. That goes way beyond file storage/sharing.

Reply


scolaro March 21 2012, 06:39:04 UTC
They argue that Google’s perspective is one-sided...

So? As long as it's not false information, I don't see how this is a valid argument for denying the brief.

Reply


sufjanisrad March 21 2012, 08:18:29 UTC
They argue that Google’s perspective is one-sided...

wait what???? and how the fuck is the mpaa's not??

Reply

baka_tenshi March 21 2012, 18:24:38 UTC
because MPAA are right and they are wrong!!! /sarcasm

Reply


Leave a comment

Up