"His main concern now is making sure users of the site get their data back, Dotcom told the blog."
Snort! he owes me a new keyboard.
The boss of the recently shut-down Megaupload file-sharing site claims that his records show plenty of US government users, including members of the Senate and the Department of Justice. "Guess what – we found a large number of Mega accounts from US Government officials including the Department of Justice and the US Senate," …
I think your comment is supposed to convey that Mr Dotcom has no altruistic motive for returning users data back to them and so his statement is therefor false.
But the statement may still be true especially if you consider the purely selfish grounds that it makes him look good and the 'evil US authorities' look bad for 'illegally seizing users data'
I had almost forgotten you!
It's comforting to know that his bullshit stories and ostentatious display of apparent wealth have not changed one bit.
At least there's one constant in this Universe. Go, Kimble--er, Mr. Dotcom--show us your cars, houses, and chicks; and tell us again how much of a bad ass hacker you are.
What's with the downvotes?
I'm not excusing the extradition or discussing the merits of the case. It's just that some of us remember back when Mr. Dotcom, known then as Kimble, used to be a self-promoting prick, boasting of his hacking prowess and setting up fly-by-night shell companies designed to take money from unsuspecting and gullible punters.
He hasn't changed a bit (perhaps he got fatter?), though it appears that he finally hit paydirt for real with Megauploads--at least for a while.
Of course Romney will be all for the little guy won't he. Never been a big business guy him has he?
Nevermind, let's have Santorum. Then you won't even care about getting free TV shows and music because you'll be worrying that you might get nailed to a tree for blasphemy instead.
Bama my be a criminal but that has nothing to do with copyright laws. Hating the RIAA/MPAA is not going to change copyright law. If you want a product or service then you pay for it like everyone else or you go without.
I think the price of gasoline is too high but I don't steal it. I think cable TV is too expensive but I don't steal it. I think Internet access and telephone rates are too high, but I don't steal those digital services.
While I fully agree that Bama should be voted out or impeached sooner, that has nothing to do with copyright holders enforcing their copyrights.
But at least he is an arse through and through, no pretension. Look at ma guns, cars, houses and babes! Unlike politicos, who hide the fact that they are enormous buttholes for as long as possible.
Exposing a bit of hypocrisy from those in power would be an awesome way to utilise your arsehole powers Mr Dotcom!
Also, clearly he's doing something right to have made all that money...
"it does seem that Dotcom is willing to name names when his case comes the trial."
Do you know something we don't?
I think that a little thing called "due process" has to be gone through before he has to name names?
He probably will be extradited but don't you think that you should give the New Zealand courts a chance to make up their minds first?
It's not that he has to name names, it's that he's threatening to, as part of his defence.
Which he should, IMHO, as it would be funny to watch the cockroaches scurry out of the light when it turns out many of those that are pushing the laws he's facing have actually used his service.
I don't say this because I support piracy, I say this because I support exposing hypocrisy.
>>I think that a little thing called "due process" has to be gone through before he has to name names?
Nope. He could easily "let slip" to newspapers, or his lawyers could see to it for him. As to "due process", where's his due process? He might be a d-ckw-d but that doesn't give the US rights to engineer his arrest on foreign soil.
"[...]don't you think that you should give the New Zealand courts a chance to make up their minds first?"
Um, yeah so far they're arrested a peaceful resident on the say-so of the 'merkins. They've seized assets on the 'merkins behalf. Why on earth wouldn't they bend down again while the US penis enters their collected anal cavities?
This means nothing. Using the system isn't the problem, it's what the company did that is illegal.
Even if individual users were breaking the law using Megaupload that is NOT the same as the Dept of Justice etc using it. That they are/were allowed to use such systems on government systems is a more interesting issue. Normally that sort of thing is massively clamped down on and blocked, just like torrenting or any p2p system.
Indeed. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at work here.
If these "US Government officials" were using Megaupload to share recordings of public committee meetings, PDFs of publicly available legislation, or NASA photos, there is no case for them to answer, nothing to fear, and Dotcom, as usual, is all hot air and bullshit.
Using a service legally, and subsequently discovering that other users were breaking the law, is not illegal. Maybe a bit embarrassing, but nothing the courts are going to care about.
Additionally, does no one care that Dotcom is happy to trawl through his users' personal details and threaten to make public the ones he doesn't like the look of?
I thin \k you miss the point.
Even if that's all they are using it for, it's a solid defence. We call that "subastanal non-infringing use." Of all, Sony knows about that better then anyone.
In addition, with all the clams that there is NO use which is justified comming out of washington and that Mr. Dotcom is a evil pirate hellbent on destroying the entertainment industry (rather then an ex-con who has served his time, and a bit of a twat (not a crime, last I looked)) it will be fun to watch the squirming and doublespeak out of whoever he names.
I was reading up on it. The reason why they claimed they went after mega load is this . Copyright holders would complain about infringement . Mega upload would only remove the unique url but not the infringing material . The person that put it there was free to generate a new URL and keep on sharing it .
Why was MegaUpload really shut down?
MegaBox was going to be an alternative music store that was entirely cloud-based and offered artists a better money-making opportunity than they would get with any record label.
"UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings," MegaUpload founder Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz told Torrentfreak
Not only did they plan on allowing artists to keep 90% of their earnings on songs that they sold, they wanted to pay them for songs they let users download for free.
"We have a solution called the Megakey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free," Dotcom outlined. "Yes that's right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works."
Why was Hollywood created:
Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would "do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear". He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.
Because of Edisons patents for the motion pictures it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North american east coast. The movie studios therefor relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there was no patent.
There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them - like Fantasia, one of Disneys biggest hits ever.
"Made more of his life than you ever have, I'd wager."
And if he spends 30 years in prison for what he "made of his life", what would your opinion be then?
Lots of posters here don't seem to understand that the real problem he faces is the money-laundering charges: he can be put away for decades on that, even if the money was legitimately and legally earned. Those charges stand by themselves. And if he's not terrified, then he is even more stupid than he seems.
"And if he spends 30 years in prison for what he "made of his life", what would your opinion be then?
Lots of posters here don't seem to understand that the real problem he faces is the money-laundering charges: he can be put away for decades on that, even if the money was legitimately and legally earned. Those charges stand by themselves. And if he's not terrified, then he is even more stupid than he seems."
Errrr. Call me confused, but money laundering is the process of concealing illegally obtained money or money obtained through crime. So, if the money has been legitimately or legally earned, how can you be guilty of money laundering? Or, is this another case of idiot Americans not knowing how to speak english, spell english, or even have the same meaning on words and phrases?
Mad Mike what makes you think he is an American as oppose to some who is not in the US and does not understand US law ? As long as the money had been legally earned and declared it's not money laundry. Now what they can do and I think is evil, is take all of his assets and make him prove it was earned legally .
No, actually I *have* made a mistake there: as pointed out by several posters, money-laundering actually does only apply to illegally-gotten income. I seem to recall that there are actions similar to money-laundering but involving legally-obtained money that are also subject to severe criminal sanction, but I can not seem to find them at the moment. (Possible I was confusing it with crimes involving the use of fraudulent trusts and tax-shelters, but possibly not.)
Thanks for the correction! (Although, nevertheless, the money-laundering charges are still the most serious charges he faces, by far.)
Good, let's clean some of the trash that infects the government. Anyone claiming "I did it for research" will have corroboration. No one does this "independently". Then it's off tp jail for Kim Com, or whatever he calls himself.
BTW, that's a nice house he has. It seems a little hypocritical that no one here (or Occupy) objects.
>>BTW, that's a nice house he has. It seems a little hypocritical that no one here (or Occupy) objects.
I fail to see the link between his house and the fact that the US are not only guilty at a government level of doing what they accuse him of, but also are imposing their laws on a foreign nation.
When I was a US government contractor, the contractors worried about licensing, paying for things, etc. The civil servants thought it would be okay just to grab stuff without paying for it.
The idea of PAYING for something worth paying for was a foreign concept to them. Oddly enough, the military seemed to get this more than ... other government institutions. You wouldn't think the military as being the best observer of private property or property rights among the bureaucracy, but there y'are.
No, we would be told to install certain software, then we'd ask for licensing info, etc, and the civil servants would tell us, in a deniable-in-court-way, that the government shouldn't have to pay for software.
This was in DC, where the entitlement attitude is admittedly quite high.
>>Oddly enough, the military seemed to get this more than ... other government institutions
Oh I don't think that's odd at all. You need to know about property ownership when you stamp your feet in some foreign nation's ground, walking around with your dic..err gun.. in your hand, threatening the populace if they don't obey. Otherwise you might have respect for other nations, and then what?
Now that Kim Dotcom has threatened to "out" people in high places in the ruling party, don't be surprised if he has a convenient heart attack just like Andrew Breitbart. I'm sure it will be attributed to Kim's weight and ruled "natural causes" within seconds, again, just like AB.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022