Guilty until proven innocent? Surely it is not unreasonable that if found guilty, the criminal would be required to produce that money or work to pay off debts.
Megaupload made money through premium accounts which "many" were used for 100% legal purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people paid for the service, not the files.
Really, which? I have never come across a site using MegaUpload to host non-pirated content. Not one. single. time. I'd love to see some examples of this non-infringing usage. Surely you can find some via archive.org easily enough, if they're so common?
I've seen plenty. Mainly around gaming stuff like mods, or even smaller games where the developer released versions on MegaUpload or similar sites. The only specific examples I can think of off the top of my head are NSFW and I'd rather not link them here, but they definitely exist, and MegaUpload was always the easiest to use of the bunch.
FWIW, forum.xda-developers.com and phone modding forums like it often use cyberlocker services, usually for the same reason: you have a lot of folks who want a file, you don't want the forum software to have to deal with the traffic and you certainly don't want to have to email it to everyone who asks.
Cyberlocker services yes, but megaupload specically? When I've seen stuff like that used in actual communities it's been either stuff like dropbox links, MSN's one (SkyDrive, or LiveDrive, something like that?)
If MU was legitimate, you can be sure these figures would not be hidden, and would be instead the #1 bulletin point of their defense. Instead, DotKim is now claiming a conspiracy theory.
MU made more profits than DropBox had revenue. Take away those accounts that signed up (tricked into) to download illegal content, and what do you have left?
He ran a legal business with a valid service. If they can't separate the money into legally acquired and illegally acquired, then in my opinion, they shouldn't freeze those assets.
Well, they are just accused, so yes. If I was not a pickpocket however was accused of being one, I'd need to have the financial means to be able to defend myself.
Of course I would. Accused pick pocket is not a convicted pick pocket, so limiting his access to funds is immoral. Not sure about the legality, to me it absolutely should not be legal but I do not have enough knowledge to claim that it is.
To better illustrate the problem with your devil's advocate approach ask yourself the same question adding in the words in brackets: would you permit a person (wrongly) accused of being a pick pocket to use (his) funds (incorrectly assumed to come) from stolen wallets to pay for his defense?
Pre-trial seizure isn't un-precedented nor inherently evil.
The Feds freeze the assets of a fraudster, e.g. Bernie Madoff, when accused of a crime. They are not yet proven guilty, no, but there is a pragmaticism that underlies the decision to trade defendant rights for the public good.
In the Madoff case his company was put under receivership, not seized: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-293-order.pdf
And ownership wasn't transfered of anything: he was enjoyed from transferring or disposing of value.
Per the document linked to Madoff's estate was put under an "order freezing assets" [1]. Dotcom's property is described as being "seized and restrained" [2], not confiscated or forfeited.
Seems like that's an awful fine line. How is that different from the MPAA claiming that Megaupload is a fraud that has stolen money that belongs to them? How do you come up with a set of objective rules that can treat one accused fraudster different from another?
