• FBI Didn't Break Law When Copying Megaupload Data Because the Data Wasn't "Physical Material"
    96 replies, posted
[quote]FBI agents who copied data from Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom's computers and took it overseas were not acting illegally because information isn't "physical material", the Crown says.The agents were accused of underhanded behaviour by Dotcom's lawyers in the High Court at Auckland yesterday, after revelations that the information was already in US hands. Megaupload's lawyer, Willie Akel, told Justice Helen Winkelmann how two FBI analysts flew to New Zealand on March 20 and reviewed seven hard-drives of information. The analysts cloned the computers in Manukau. When police returned to pick them up to take them to their hotel, the agents had already left to FedEx the copies back to the United States. "The first [copies] were sent without the New Zealand Police having any say in it whatsoever," Mr Akel said. The commissioner of police had "lost control of the items" once the FBI had them. "If [they] went offshore without the consent of the attorney-general, it was an illegal act."Mr Akel said that there had been an agreement that none of the evidence against Dotcom, seized after his arrest, would be provided to the FBI without prior agreement. However, Crown lawyer John Pike, for the attorney-general, said the material stored on the hard drives could be shipped overseas for the FBI to examine because it did not constitute "physical" material. The relevant legislation applied only to physical possessions rather than information, Mr Pike said. "[Information] may be the most valuable thing we have, but it is not scooped up by the act". He said that there were "gremlins" all through the exercise, which made the situation difficult to understand. "Nothing of the physical items have gone overseas and that was our undertaking." Justice Winkelmann said that there was an obligation that material deemed irrelevant to the investigation be returned. However, Mr Pike said it was too difficult to know what was relevant and what was not. "Police, to put it bluntly, would not have a clue what is relevant and what is not relevant. How could they?" Dotcom, 38, is on bail awaiting an extradition hearing. US authorities say he and his three co-accused – Mathias Ortmann, Fin Batato and Bram van der Kolk – used Megaupload and its affiliated sites to knowingly make money from pirated movies and games. [/quote] [URL]http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7054878/Dotcom-info-not-physical[/URL] In related news, copying music and movies online is no longer illegal because the data isn't physical!
You heard it everyone. Pirate to your hearts content. It isn't illegal, the FBI said so.
So I don't have to worry about my 'linux distros' anymore?
Final Nail in the coffin. Pirating is not illegal in the US because you are not 'physically stealing' the files. You fucked up, FBI. You fucked up big.
lol precedent
What was the problem with Megaupload then? They didn't host physical material.
This is [h2]HUGE[/h2]
That argument actually does basically give pirates carte blanche to do whatever they want.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhhtRxqSrys&feature=related[/media] Here's a song for both sides of the party. Also... FBI can't do much now, this has gone past the FUBAR point.
I think piracy is more of a copyright issue. They say they didn't break the law because the data wasn't "physical material" which is apparently a loophole in standard theivery laws or something. Basically this means it doesn't count as stealing if you copy someone's images without their permission, unless they copyrighted those images or oh fuckit I don't know I'm just talking out my ass. Someone's probably going to dissect this post word-by-word and tell me exactly why I'm wrong. Whatever.
pretty sure that's objectively wrong
I see this backfiring soon..
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGp9P6QvMjY[/media]
have fun getting this through MPAA's thick skull
Good one FBI. > A man walks into a bank with a gun and robs the place. > Stealing. > A man hacks a banks database and downloads account data and give himself shitloads of cash. > Not stealing.
[QUOTE=wizard`;36230847]Good one FBI. > A man walks into a bank with a gun and robs the place. > Stealing. > A man hacks a banks database and downloads account data and give himself shitloads of cash. > Not stealing.[/QUOTE] because downloading a copy of something is the same as taking account information and stealing actual money
[QUOTE=longears34;36230872]because downloading a copy of something is the same as taking account information and stealing actual money[/QUOTE] That's the point.
I don't think you guys should be so quick to jump the gun. The most this precedent could mean is you don't get slammed for stealing [b]on top of[/b] copyright infringement for pirating. You can still get hit with copyright infringement, though. This isn't a "piracy is legal" thing. It's just saying piracy isn't stealing - which it isn't. It is, however, still copyright infringement.
[quote]information isn't "physical material"[/quote] um, I have bad news for you FBI
So by that logic Megaupload also did nothing wrong?
[QUOTE=Thlis;36230967]So by that logic Megaupload also did nothing wrong?[/QUOTE] Megaupload was also doing some sort of money laundering or some such thing. Hosting "illegal" content wasn't the only thing they got slammed for.
[QUOTE=Thlis;36230967]So by that logic Megaupload also did nothing wrong?[/QUOTE] [quote=gmod4ever]I don't think you guys should be so quick to jump the gun. The most this precedent could mean is you don't get slammed for stealing on top of copyright infringement for pirating. You can still get hit with copyright infringement, though. This isn't a "piracy is legal" thing. It's just saying piracy isn't stealing - which it isn't. It is, however, still copyright infringement.[/quote] Hi there. [editline]7th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=lavacano;36230995]Megaupload was also doing some sort of money laundering or some such thing. Hosting "illegal" content wasn't the only thing they got slammed for.[/QUOTE] Also this. Megaupload was violating even more laws that most. :v:
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;36230929]um, I have bad news for you FBI[/QUOTE] Yea, isn't information basically inscribed into microscopic valleys on the hard drive/disc?
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;36231037]Piracy being "stealing" is an important argument against it regardless.[/QUOTE] piracy is copyright infringement not stealing
[QUOTE=TMBGFan;36230818]I think piracy is more of a copyright issue. They say they didn't break the law because the data wasn't "physical material" which is apparently a loophole in standard theivery laws or something. Basically this means it doesn't count as stealing if you copy someone's images without their permission, unless they copyrighted those images or oh fuckit I don't know I'm just talking out my ass. Someone's probably going to dissect this post word-by-word and tell me exactly why I'm wrong. Whatever.[/QUOTE] You're right. Piracy is NOT stealing. Piracy is infringement of a copyright. That's why piracy is illegal and the FBI's actions are legal. [editline]7th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;36231037]Piracy being "stealing" is an important argument against it regardless.[/QUOTE] Although the lobbyists and commercials would try and make the parallell between the two, stealing and copyright infringement are two separate legal issues.
I assume they watched this? [video=youtube;IeTybKL1pM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4[/video]
[QUOTE=TMBGFan;36230818]I think piracy is more of a copyright issue. They say they didn't break the law because the data wasn't "physical material" which is apparently a loophole in standard theivery laws or something. Basically this means it doesn't count as stealing if you copy someone's images without their permission, unless they copyrighted those images or oh fuckit I don't know I'm just talking out my ass. Someone's probably going to dissect this post word-by-word and tell me exactly why I'm wrong. Whatever.[/QUOTE] So don't people have a basic copyright over their shit, so the FBI is committing a copyright crime
Do people even read the article anymore? The FBI didn't make this decision. A court in New Zealand of all places made this decision. That doesn't necessarily set a legal precedent for courts in the United States or Europe.
So does that mean no more bills like SOPA and PIPA?
[QUOTE=catbarf;36231194]Do people even read the article anymore? The FBI didn't make this decision. A court in New Zealand of all places made this decision. That doesn't necessarily set a legal precedent for courts in the United States or Europe.[/QUOTE] But it does show that the precedent could be set if a similar case were ever brought to the Supreme Court. I digress I didn't notice it was in the Zealand High Court until a bit later myself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.