Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void" 139
thomst writes "Cnet's Greg Sandoval reports that New Zealand police filed for the wrong kind of restraining order--the kind that didn't allow for DotCom to have a court hearing prior to the seizure — and that was a mistake, according to a report in the New Zealand Herald. A court has now ruled that the restraining order that enabled police to seize his assets is 'null and void,' and a review of the mistakes made will soon be conducted by New Zealand's attorney general, according to the Herald. The paper noted that there's no guarantee that DotCom will prevail. His lawyers must prove the absence of good faith when the procedural error was made."
Re:DCMA applies? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh goodie (Score:4, Informative)
There is a reason the people for Freedom of speech rallied behind smut peddler and general amoral person, Larry Flint. If you don't defend the objectionable when they come for them, nobody will object when they come for you. It doesn't work in simple movie heroics but the people at the frontlines of the battle between good and right often ain't all that nice. Many a freedom fighter is just one step away from being a criminal, even in the eyes of their own side. The non-silly part of Dad's army was hard line enemies of the state, who were trained by the state since it was reasoned they hated the nazi's even more then British government and could be counted upon to kill those of the British government who would colaborate with an occupying german force.
Keep waiting for a nice guy to rally behind and you might find that the battle has been lost before you ever got started.
Mind you, I got the strong suspicion that since you are an AC, you might well not mind all that much. 10 to 1 that you think DRM and Trusted Computing are all worth it, for your cause.
Obviously foreign states can sue you (Score:5, Informative)
Does the local police force working under the direction and supervision of a foreign govt count as a 'procedural error' as well?
Just in the case that you're actually interested in the response, it's going to disappoint you : no. Imagine if that were true : you'd just have to cross a single jurisdiction line and you'd get away with any crime whatsoever. That doesn't quite work.
We have this thing called international treaties. These days, if you commit a crime, it doesn't really matter if the victim of said crime is in your own country or in another one. If the victim decides to sue, or a foreign state decides to sue (as in this case), they can do so (although relatively high minimum damage levels are enforced : you can't sue a foreignor for less than about $2000). With a big exception in the EU, the proceedings are executed according to local law (in civial matters), and there local laws apply (in the EU foreign treaties take precedence of local laws, even constitutions, so it's much worse there). Foreign states are special in that they can start both civil and criminal proceedings. You do need to have violated a local law : you can't sue a muslim for beating his wife nearly to death if he manages to get into Morocco was a pretty high-profile case recently (and maybe this law will change, something to do with a number of suicides in that country).
What is going on here is that the police has seized his property because they believe he has committed a criminal offence and that someone (e.g. Time Warner) will seek damages, and has a reasonable chance to get them. They believe there is a big chance that given the chance, Kim Dotcom will cut and run (apparently he's done that before in Germany), and the judge agreed with that.
One of the things any lawyer should tell you : if you violate a legal principle that applies both in your country and in a foreign country, but only has foreign "victims", you won't be protected by jurisdiction limits. So the simple thing is : in America, insult whatever political figure or religion or ideology you like, and don't worry about morons like North Korea or Saudi Arabia suing you. Don't violate American law, even if you're "only hurting" foreigners.
If you want to change copyright, by all means go ahead. However if you try to do this through the court, you will fail, and you best be prepared to be bankrupt for the rest of your life. Any real action will be played out in congress. Democracy does not mean you do what you want, rather that the majority of the country, represented by freely chosen congresscritters, has to agree you're allowed to do it. If you can't convince enough of your fellow Americans (ie. 150 million), it's not going to happen.
Re:probably won't help (Score:4, Informative)
And yet, we see examples of US attempting to exert a huge influence on other countries all the time and pressuring in whatever way they can to do so.
Be it copyright laws, drug enforcement laws, support for their wars or whatever else it is in their interest the following day.
It's not a conspiracy, just foreign policy from the leading military and technological super power of the world.
Re:When will they seize Time Warner's assets? (Score:2, Informative)
Let's see how the corrupt US courts deal with this problem.
The US Government would rather topple New Zealand's Prime Minister than correct their own problems.
“Four Corners” itself noted that the key Labor coup plotters, as revealed in WikiLeaks cables, had long been secretly informing Washington about the internal workings of the Labor government. The same cables make clear that the Obama administration was disenchanted with Rudd over a range of issues, especially his attempts to moderate rising tensions between the US and China. Gillard, on the other hand, was viewed in positive terms as someone who could be counted on to toe Washington’s line.
http://indymedia.org.au/2012/02/22/the-role-of-the-us-in-the-leadership-crisis-in-the-alp [indymedia.org.au]