Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Your Rights Online

Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void" 139

Posted by samzenpus
from the whoops-our-bad dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void"

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18, 2012 @12:57PM (#39396249)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by davester666 (731373)

      Does the local police force working under the direction and supervision of a foreign govt count as a 'procedural error' as well?

      • by rtb61 (674572) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @06:01PM (#39398243) Homepage

        There is only one way to find out and that is to force exposure of the corruption of the copyrightists, those that most distributed software to enable copyright infraction in order shut down a public internet and convert it into a mass media controlled internet.

        That video mentioned http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka5oLSuiUGs [youtube.com] needs to be pushed as far and wide as possible.

        Let's see how the corrupt US courts deal with this problem. Let's chain mail this video as publicly and embarrassingly around the world as possible. I have already spent a chunk of time emailing the link to political parties and labour organisations.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ozmanjusri (601766)

          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]

          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18, 2012 @07:25PM (#39398757)

            Dude - Kevin Rudd is a member of the AUSTRALIAN Labor party. Nothing to do with NZ. John Key (NZ's Prime Minister) is probably the most US friendly leader we've had in a decade.

        • You will only "force exposure" at the point of a gun.

          But, don't let that bother you. The various MAFIAA's of the world have no qualms over purchasing entire police forces to break into people's homes, offices, and data centers at the points of multiple guns to seize "evidence".

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18, 2012 @06:03PM (#39398259)

        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.

        • by Delosian (1443777)

          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.

          Ah, but it does work! Ever heard of non-extradition countries? There are quite a few of them:

          Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo (Kinshasa), Congo (Brazzaville), Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Mace

          • by alexo (9335)

            Ah, but it does work! Ever heard of non-extradition countries? There are quite a few of them:

            Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo (Kinshasa), Congo (Brazzaville), Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican, and Vietnam. Also note that Taiwan is one for now but the US is currently talking to them about it.

            From this list, please name the countries you will be willing to immigrate to.
            (Bonus points if you're a non-Muslim female.)

  • I'm divided (Score:1, Insightful)

    by schnikies79 (788746)

    Kim Dotcom is an absolute fucking tool, and I have ZERO respect for him. That said, if the authorities screwed up, they screwed up. Return his stuff.

    • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:09PM (#39396369)

      So if he was innocent but they had the correct paperwork, everything would be ok with you?

      • Not being a tool is not the same as being innocent.

      • by reub2000 (705806)

        Well one would hope that the paperwork is there to prevent searches and seizures against innocent people.

        • by Sir_Sri (199544)

          that would be one of many reasons. Bureaucracy sometimes exists to serve the bureaucracy, sometimes some broader strategic interest etc. Should the police be looking to seize assets as the property of an individual who is accused of, seizing the assets of the principle owner of a corporation accused of, seizing the assets of the corporation, being used for the principle owner etc. etc. etc.

          I'm not a lawyer, australian or otherwise, but the way I vaguely understand other commonwealth law is that Megaupload

      • If you RTFA you would notice it was not really the papers that were wrong. It was the worng procedure. In the correct procedure it would be allowed to get a hearing before all his belongings were taken.

        And the difference can be enormous. By taking his belongings and the company the (rented) websites and all the data on it ceases to exist. That is mayor damage without a hearing!

    • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PieceOfShitAndroid (2538056) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:10PM (#39396373)
      Whether or not he is not a tool is irrelevant. His business has already been destroyed. What is important the fact that there is no rule of law. Governments have too much power. This needs to change.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook. It so happens that this time, he was running a file sharing site. But between his credit card thefts, his stock scams and his selling of cracked games to pirate factories, the guy will always find some new crime to make a fortune off of. And I do mean a fortune.

        I for one, am praying t

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by GmExtremacy (2579091) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:27PM (#39396499)

          How can you possible be defending Kimble?

          I'd defend anyone from what I believe is abuse. Mentioning his name will not change that for me. That was just a general statement.

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:38PM (#39396579)

          "Easy cases make bad law. [google.com]"

          They go after Kim Dotcom because they think they can make an unsympathetic defendant of him. That's part of why all the trumped up bullshit in the complaint vs. "Megaupload" as well (constant words like "mega conspiracy", "child porn", and so on created to scare the crap out of the grand jury).

          If you don't defend him, though, then that sets a precedent and other people get fucked over by the bad precedent. Why do you think the MafIAA run away from court every time they look like they are about to lose a case? It's because settling or "dropping" the case doesn't create precedent, but losing in court would.

          • by shentino (1139071)

            I wonder if any of the mafiaa's defendents will ever get sick enough of the debacle to deny the dismissal and force the case through to the end.

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Charliemopps (1157495) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:42PM (#39396609)
          When they take YOUR rights away, they start by taking them away from someone you find distasteful. Often it is the mistake of the naive to think that Rights only apply to the good and just citizen. What they do not realize is that, if you can make a distinction regarding who deserves certain Rights and who does not, it is only a matter of time before the government finds a way to make that very distinction against you. Rights are not rights unless they apply to everyone, equally.
          • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18, 2012 @03:27PM (#39397259)

            Exactly. You know the post the other day regarding the American getting charged with child pornography for having manga on his PC? This one:

            http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/15/2034252/canadian-charges-against-us-manga-reader-dropped

            That happened because the government created the precedent by prosecuting John Sharpe for his drawings. Since Sharpe also had pictures of child pornography, and indeed was likely a child toucher, it was an easy win because the public vilified him for BOTH things (drawings/books and the pictures) and therefore decided that throwing away their rights was worth it to put him in prison rather than realizing there's two separate cases there (the thought expression vs. the pictures).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpe

            • Of course, and I, as well as most people, find menga gross. Illegal however? That would be nearly impossible to legislate unless we start talking about thought crimes. And once it's illegal to "think" something, no matter how horrible a thought it is... we are all doomed.
        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Znork (31774) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:46PM (#39396641)

          Mr. Dotcom is hardly a hero but any money he makes is unlikely to finance the corruption in governments and trade treaties we see. The money he makes isn't going to turn the world into a police state. It may go towards scamming, but scammers do not usually have storm troopers crashing into the homes of private citizens.

          Any and all ways that deprive the intellectual monopoly corps of revenue are good. Even if it means creeps like Dotcom get money.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Who else wishes that 1/10th of the effort spenton getting Kim Dotcom Was spent on investigating at LEAST 1 corporate banker or organization behind the recent bank debacle in the states. These "folk" caused far, far, far more damage than Dotcom did.

            It just goes to show that no matter how corrupt an entity is, if the entity has congress backing, it can get away with just about anything.

            DISGRACEFUL SYSTEM.

            AC

          • by Shavano (2541114)

            Mr. Dotcom is hardly a hero but any money he makes is unlikely to finance the corruption in governments and trade treaties we see. The money he makes isn't going to turn the world into a police state. It may go towards scamming, but scammers do not usually have storm troopers crashing into the homes of private citizens.

            Any and all ways that deprive the intellectual monopoly corps of revenue are good. Even if it means creeps like Dotcom get money.

            I'm not sure I agree with that. I think his case has encouraged governments to cooperate with the the recording industry on bad law and setting bad precedends. If the governements see the recording industry and their armies of lawyers as good guys in contrast to Dotcom and (they presume) many others like him, it eases their minds about whether they're doing the right thing. And he tarnishes the images of other file sharers who may be operating within the law.

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @02:06PM (#39396773) Journal
          It's a very small step between bending the law to go after people we know are doing something illegal to bending the law to go after people the police or people in power don't like. That's the point of the rule of law: sometimes it protects asshats, but that's better than it not protecting anyone.
        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by blahplusplus (757119) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @02:31PM (#39396925)

          "How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook."

          You mean like most modern businesses? At this point there is little difference between kimble and what is the status quo for the corporate sector. You're blind otherwise.

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Asic Eng (193332) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @02:34PM (#39396935)

          If we want to live in a society which respects the rule of law, then the law also protects assholes, and taking that protection away from them takes it away from everybody.

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sjames (1099) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @02:51PM (#39397029) Homepage

          Insisting on due process is defending ALL of us. If he's as bad as you say (and that's likely), then he can be nailed to the wall without endangering the rights of everyone by following due process to the letter.

          I would have to say this was a very serious violation. Everyone should have known what due process was here, but somehow, nobody seems to have noticed that they were doing the wrong thing based on the wrong paperwork being filed? I'm supposed to believe that? The judge should be especially ashamed for being so quick with the rubber stamp that he didn't notice.

        • Re: jailed for good? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by King_TJ (85913) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @02:56PM (#39397061) Journal

          My feeling is this... If Kim was guilty of stealing credit cards, stock scams or selling cracked games to pirate factories, he should be arrested and tried on those counts.
          Instead, it looks like they decided it was far more lucrative to take down his MegaUpload site, which is relatively legitimate by comparison to ANY of those other things.

          Justice shouldn't be opportunistic, waiting for the "bad guy" to build up something "really worth seizing".

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:4, Insightful)

          by pscottdv (676889) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @02:57PM (#39397071)

          How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook.

          Exactly, only honest people have the right to expect due process and the rule of law.

          People who share copyrighted works shouldn't be protected by the rule of law!

        • Because while he may have been doing something of an illicit nature, the people bringing him down were no saints.

        • by meerling (1487879)
          Two wrongs make everything even more F'd up.

          And no, this isn't some function of math (- or i) so that you can change a negative into a positive with another negative, even though the results can multiply when you try.
        • Oh goodie (Score:4, Informative)

          by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @04:44PM (#39397749) Journal

          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.

        • Re:I'm divided (Score:4, Insightful)

          by smash (1351) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @09:31PM (#39399445) Homepage Journal

          How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights

          Because, irrespective of WHO it was, the police has destroyed his business BEFORE proving him guilty in a court of law. This is not the way the justice system is designed to work. IF he is found innocent (and its a legally grey area), then how do the police propose to compensate him to losses incurred?

          This could, and should have been taken to court without the drama/show for the media, and IF he was found guilty of anything THEN his assets get seized.

          I for one, am praying that Kimble is jailed for good, and stops giving a bad name to REAL defenders of IP rights and file sharers.

          This is nothing to do with IP rights, it is to do with a man being jailed, and having his assets seized without a fair trial. Whether or not he is guilty or not is irrelevant - due process was not followed and this is a major concern.

        • If the law was fair and just, then you might have a justification in calling Kim a "crook" for evading it. But it's not.

      • by ciascu (1345429)

        I think there's a good point here about the impact of this kind of process on a business, whether Kim Dotcom's or anybody else's and regardless of the outcome.

        "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. In a world where decisions are made on the basis of an opportune fortune cookie that fell out of a bag on the shelf where I spotted my subscription copy of "Advertiser's Guide to Large File Hosting Monthly", law enforcement storming an executive's private residence with a cornucopia of gun

    • Re:I'm divided (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdev (227251) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:24PM (#39396489)

      Right, return his stuff after the damage is already done. Megauploads is gone. Nothing they can do now can repair their business.

      And to be honest, I think that was the point of this whole exercise. I don't think our government cared about making any kind of legal precedent here. They mostly just wanted to show that they had the ability to take any of these guys down and went after a high profile business to do it.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The same thing happened to ShareReactor [wikipedia.org]. It was shut down on "suspicion of breach of copyright and trademark laws". The investigation took several years. In the end there was no charges but the site was effectively destroyed.

      • Re:I'm divided (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Fallingwater (1465567) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @03:16PM (#39397175)

        Right, return his stuff after the damage is already done. Megauploads is gone. Nothing they can do now can repair their business.

        Megaupload was/is the most famous sharing site, and all this buzz around it after the arrest/shutdown only made it more widely known. If Dotcom can bend the laws enough to restart it without getting thrown in jail again, he'll be making thrice as much money from Megaupload as he was before.

        • Mod parent up. That's actually a good point, and for all we know, he may still have a copy of the files laying around which would drive traffic there /instantly/.

    • by loufoque (1400831)

      "tool" does not mean what you think it means.

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:05PM (#39396319)

    If he named himself Kim Dotnz the Americans wouldn't have any jurisdiction over him.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Dogtanian (588974)

      If he named himself Kim Dotnz the Americans wouldn't have any jurisdiction over him.

      Technically, being called Kim Dotcom doesn't in itself give the Americans any jurisdiction over him, just his canonical name. In fact, you can still refer to him as "Mr 88.191.78.39".

      Anyway, as .nz domains all appear to be split into second level categories, he'd have to be "Kim Dotcodotnz" or "Kim Dotgeekdotnz" (that second one showing that the Americans aren't the only one coming up with stupid domain categories).

      • by Anonymous Coward

        ...you can still refer to him as "Mr 88.191.78.39"...

        Doesn't quite roll off the tongue as eloquently as "double-oh-seven"...

  • by v1 (525388) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:05PM (#39396333) Homepage Journal

    it's essentially impossible to prove "bad faith" on something like this without a "smoking gun" like an email mentioning how they're just going to take a shortcut or something.

    IMHO, the whole concept of "it's ok to do something illegal as long as you had good intentions" is not something that should work for the law, ever. It rarely helps the citizen. ("good samaritan" laws being the only common exception)

    The whole point of having legal requirements is to force them to make sure they have their ducks in a row before exercising their powers. Once you say "well it's OK if you violate someone's rights, as long as it was an honest mistake", it opens a huge barn door to abuse. Laws should always be slanted in favor of the accused, to lower the incidence of abuse and mistaken application.

    • by Flavio (12072) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:16PM (#39396411)

      Once you say "well it's OK if you violate someone's rights, as long as it was an honest mistake", it opens a huge barn door to abuse.

      And this is why politicians consistently play dumb and ignorant. People can be incarcerated for being corrupt, but not for being unintelligent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Hardly.

      it's essentially impossible to prove "bad faith" on something like this without a "smoking gun" like an email mentioning how they're just going to take a shortcut or something.

      The entire purpose of all of the "paperwork" and everything else was to engage in classic police state tactics - namely, "sieze now, don't explain till later" bullshit.

      There was absolutely no reason to not pursue normal court procedures, in which Dotcom would have been able to have legal representation every step of the way, sa

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        We both know you're right.

        The challenge is having the NZ courts rule there was bad faith when the US is clearly manipulating the entire process.

        • by nomadic (141991)
          "The challenge is having the NZ courts rule there was bad faith when the US is clearly manipulating the entire process."

          Not really. As much as slashdotters want to believe there is a shadowy U.S. cabal dictating policy to every other country, it's just not true.
          • "The challenge is having the NZ courts rule there was bad faith when the US is clearly manipulating the entire process."

            Not really. As much as slashdotters want to believe there is a shadowy U.S. cabal dictating policy to every other country, it's just not true.

            That's right. Vampires don't cast shadows.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            I'm afraid the word of "nomadic" from Slashdot isn't enough to counter my recent observations.

          • by Isaac Remuant (1891806) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @06:48PM (#39398539)

            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.

            • by nomadic (141991)
              As it's been the case with every other major power in the history of the world. The point is these pressures aren't done in secret volcano lairs by masked supervillains, it's just the normal push and pull of international relations and the standard, low-level contact between prosecutors and police groups. It goes the other way, too.
              • As it's been the case with every other major power in the history of the world. The point is these pressures aren't done in secret volcano lairs by masked supervillains,

                "The US manipulating the entire process" doesn't equal "Secret volcano lairs by masked supervillains". You admit the US does it (like everyone else, you say) but when someone dares to claim the US manipulated the process you try to make them sound like a conspiracy theorist by completely misinterpreting what they say. What gives?

                • by nomadic (141991)
                  Because "manipulate" means someone was done that didn't follow the process. Are you saying that the US didn't follow "the process" when they asked that this guy be cracked down on? Where was the "manipulation"?
    • by sjames (1099) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @03:40PM (#39397363) Homepage

      It is entirely possible and it practically proves itself. The judge is implicitly signing that he has read and understood the warrant when he signs it. Clearly he didn't. He had a couple months to notice the news and realize that the necessary hearing never happened. He never came forward. The police knew what the right procedure was but clearly didn't care (they HAD to notice).

      The problem is that proving "bad faith" in the sense that the courts will lift a finger to actually uphold justice cannot be done. Even the smoking gun, bloody shirt, gory dagger with fingerprints on it, AND video of the murder won't be enough to meet that "threshold of proof".

  • by jamstar7 (694492) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:06PM (#39396339)
    ... they refile the 'proper' warrant, get a judge to sign off on it, and take his stuff again. So the cops screwed up. This is news?
    • The principle appears to be that they cannot seize assets without him having his day in court. From Guantanamo Bay to the English High Courts, the principle of trying to shut people up without having the put up with their legal representation is getting rather too common.

      Years ago Hilaire Belloc made a rather good joke about many apparently worthy causes actually being the work of the "Society for the prevention of annoyances to the rich". This seems to be what is going on nowadays - the Internet is allowin

    • by symbolset (646467) *
      According to the second link they already did this, so he never did get his stuff back.
  • Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:07PM (#39396345)
    Why do bad things happen to police states?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I don't understand why they don't have complete safe harbor under DCMA? I would think they would.. did they ignore take downs or I guess perhaps their system is distributed if they aren't hosting anything then they can't take it down. In any case, linking to a file should never the the same as file distribution. :(

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Why would the DCMA apply? Is New Zealand part of the US now.

    • by KZigurs (638781)

      Because DCMA is a joke, really. If you follow the law you WILL be found guilty regardless. The only way to be compliant with DCMA is to cut in the **AA in the deal as well (as youtube have done).

    • Re:DCMA applies? (Score:4, Informative)

      by blackraven14250 (902843) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @02:11PM (#39396807)
      This was gone over quite a bit in the original posts. They do host files. They would save space by hashing files and sending multiple links created by multiple users to the same single file on their servers. Then, when a DMCA request was issued, they'd remove the single users' link that they had gotten the request for, and not the file itself.
      • by Shagg (99693)

        They would save space by hashing files and sending multiple links created by multiple users to the same single file on their servers.

        Which is fairly common. From what I understand, courts have already said this is fine.

        Then, when a DMCA request was issued, they'd remove the single users' link that they had gotten the request for, and not the file itself.

        Of course they only remove the link. What do you expect them to do?

        Say two people upload the same file to the file hosting service. User A does so for legitimate purposes and doesn't share his link with anybody. User B does so and then shares the link. A DMCA request is issued against User B. Should the hosting service remove User B's shared link, or should they remove the file itself, meaning that the completely inn

  • by buckhead_buddy (186384) on Sunday March 18, 2012 @01:23PM (#39396477)

    As an American, I'm glad to see foreign courts aren't completely acquiescing to the same "moral imperatives" our politicians and intellectual property owners demand we submit to.

    As an epileptic, I'm dreading all the "clever" headline puns describing Kim Dotcom's "seizure disorder".

    As a geek, I can't wait to debate whether the it should have instead been ruled NIL, as well as NULL and VOID.

    • by AbRASiON (589899) *

      That last sentence I can't tell if you're also going for some kind of NZ accent double whammy too,... :)

  • "We accidentally your rights"

    (and anyone who believes it was an "accident" isn't paranoid enough)

  • Wow. It's both Null *AND* Void?? I guess they really, really, really mean it.

    Seriously, though, as a lawyer, I'm frustrated by this tendency to say everything twice "Will and Testament," "Cease and Desist," "says and declares," etc.... Say it once.

  • The fascist pigs went after Dotcom, but they have been getting their come-uppances of late. It is good to see that even the mighty forces of the US colossus do not always prevail. Hurrah!

186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.

Working...