back to article Kim Dotcom: You give me proof of govt corruption in my case, I give you millions

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is offering a $5m bounty to anyone who can prove corruption by the Feds or Hollywood studios to help him defend against the online piracy case against him. Dotcom tweeted that his case was “unfair” and he was offering the cash to anyone who wanted to blow the whistle on the authorities. My case …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ah justice

    MAFIAA - We with our combined billions are taking you to court for massive copyright infringement.

    Dotcom - Fine, I'm pretty sure some of this is unlawful so I will defend myself with lawyers paid for with my millions.

    MAFIAA - Uhm, crap somebody who can actually fight back... We think you got that money illegally so we want assets frozen so you can't afford your lawyers

    Dotcom - Dick move guys... dick move.

    -------------------------------

    As a note I don't actually defend Dotcom and I do agree he's probably guilty. But I also really dislike the MAFIAA. Mostly because they tend to use the exact xame tactics on the little guy, only in this case the've realized they're trying to fuck with somebody who might actually fight back.

    ------------------------------

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/

    That is the reason I hate the MAFIAA most, Along with the fact I feel they overcharge drastically for what they deliver, although prices are beginning to reach a state where I'm willing to pay them.

    1. Dr Stephen Jones

      Re: UKIP ranter I expect

      Ranty AC: "As a note I don't actually defend Dotcom and I do agree he's probably guilty."

      Your is that "two wrongs make a right". Kim Dotcom made millions and got very fat and rich by leeching from the work of artists, who he didn't pay or compensate in any other way. Mega turned over $175m in advertising revenue.

      What you have forgotten is that Hollywood studios generally do pay the people who do the work. (Clue: the workers go on strike when they don't). So do publishers and record labels. Most often in the music industry at least, it's the managers who rip off the artist.

      So you are trying to invent a second 'wrong' and give it moral equivalence to Kim Dotcom's wrong. Which means that paying people is bad, but not paying them is about the same - equally bad.

      If you don't like Hollywood, you should support independent studios, independent publishers, independent labels, independent film-makers and so on - rather than ranting like a socially inadequate (and probably autistic) 13-year old idiot on the internet.

      If something is too expensive then don't buy it, you asshole. Borrow one off a mate. Nobody makes you buy stuff. All round your argument is completely morally bankrupt.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Got very fat ...

        How do you know he wasn't very fat before this activity? You're making lots of assumptions there :-P

      2. Suricou Raven

        Re: UKIP ranter I expect

        "What you have forgotten is that Hollywood studios generally do pay the people who do the work."

        When they have to. They invented 'hollywood accounting.'

        There's a reason you always see films reported as 'Grossed $X on a budget of $Y.' Because on paper, almost every film loses money. If there's no profit there's no corporation tax, and you can get away with lower royalty payments.

        Avatar? Harry Potter? Star Wars (New, not sure about old)? All lost money, officially.

        1. Dr Stephen Jones

          Re: UKIP ranter I expect

          "Avatar? Harry Potter? Star Wars (New, not sure about old)? All lost money, officially."

          That's a tax dodge. Everyone involved in making those movies got paid. Now tell me how much of the $175m in revenue Mega returned to camera grips, writers, composers, sound men etc.

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: UKIP ranter I expect

            @Dr Stephen Jones.

            "That's a tax dodge. Everyone involved in making those movies got paid. Now tell me how much of the $175m in revenue Mega returned to camera grips, writers, composers, sound men etc."

            What a funny comment. So, your holding up companies that paid camera grips, writers etc. and yet are yourself admitting they are tax dodging, which is a crime under new legislation in the UK. Very funny, really very funny.

            So, you don't think that effectively stealing from the taxpayer is worth some criticism?

            You don't work for them by any chance do you?

            1. Dr Stephen Jones

              Re: UKIP ranter I expect

              @Mad Mike

              I'll explain it simply for you. A "tax dodge" may either be legal, an entirely legitimate attempt to minimise tax within the tax code, which every company tries to do, or it may be illegal. The former is called tax avoidance, the latter is called tax evasion. Dodge is a generic term. Legal tax avoidance is not criminal, and it is certainly not "stealing from the taxpayer". In addition to defrauding artists, Mega defrauded the tax payer.

              The point you are trying to defend here is that an industry that operates within the law and remunerates its labour is morally equivalent to an industry that does not pay the labour from which it earns enormous profits.

              @Mad Mike: "You don't work for them by any chance do you?"

              You have noticed that I disagree with you, so therefore I must be being paid. See - it's a ZanuLieBore CONSPIRACY!

              Thanks for illustrating my point - that copyright fighters are the tech world's foaming-at-the-mouth UKIP nutters - so nicely for me. Please post again. And try and work in "EUSSR" this time.

              1. Busby

                Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                "In addition to defrauding artists, Mega defrauded the tax payer."

                Haven't seen that on the stories I've read about dotcom's legal woes. Have you got a link regarding charges he's facing for tax evasion as I understood all the legal issues were copyright related I didn't realise that he also wasn't paying taxes?

                1. Mad Mike

                  Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                  @Busby

                  "Haven't seen that on the stories I've read about dotcom's legal woes. Have you got a link regarding charges he's facing for tax evasion as I understood all the legal issues were copyright related I didn't realise that he also wasn't paying taxes?"

                  Don't mistake the postings from a couple of people as being based on reality. I'm not aware of any tax evasion charges either, but I'm sure the authorities will chuck a few at him for good measure as well. After all, they got Al Capone under tax evasion in the end!! If the authorities decide they want to get you, the exact charge doesn't really matter. If they don't want to get you (too much influence/political donations etc.etc.), then there won't be a charge regardless.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                  Dotcom sucked out $175m of revenue and didn't pay a penny of tax. If he was a legitimate distributor of movies, music books etc he would have had to pay VAT, sales tax on each item sold.

                  (Yeah, I know Amazon doesn't. But pretty much everyone else does).

                  I love how the twisted fuckups here defend tax avoiders. Kim Dotcom could pretty much molest their sisters and they'd say, "Hey Kim, nice work. Sock it to the copyright man!"

                  1. Busby

                    Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                    Sources please? That there are serious questions for Kim to answer regarding copyright infringement, the tax dodging claims seem to be something new and from what I see I suspect an organised campaign.

                    Can you provide links detailing charges for tax evasion or did you pull that one out of your arse?

                  2. Mad Mike

                    Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                    @AC

                    "Dotcom sucked out $175m of revenue and didn't pay a penny of tax. If he was a legitimate distributor of movies, music books etc he would have had to pay VAT, sales tax on each item sold.

                    (Yeah, I know Amazon doesn't. But pretty much everyone else does).

                    I love how the twisted fuckups here defend tax avoiders. Kim Dotcom could pretty much molest their sisters and they'd say, "Hey Kim, nice work. Sock it to the copyright man!""

                    Yet again, making up what was said. The people involved simply asked whether he had been charged. To my knowledge, he hasn't. They never said he had, or hadn't not paid tax, simply that it wasn't a charge leveled against him at the moment. However, other posters claimed it was a charge and have yet to come up with any evidence a tax evasion charge has in fact been made. So, at the moment, no matter what you say, Kim Dotcom is not charged with any tax offences.

              2. Mad Mike

                Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                @Dr Stephen Jones.

                Mmmm. Another rant and resorting to insults again. Just to fill in your obvious lack of knowledge of the tax system in the UK. ANY mechanism whose sole purpose is to reduce your tax liability is now illegal. Recent legislation made this change. So, the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is now more and more blurred. One could argue that many of the activities companies perform are solely to reduce tax and therefore, according to the law, are now evasion.

                So, you're now claiming that film and music companies operate within the law. So, it was legal for Sony to dump a rootkit on my computer without any warning or anything? Just by inserting the CD? If any individual attempted that stunt, they would be prosecuted. It is illegal under the current law. So, how come Sony got away with it?

                The music and film industry have beyond any reasonable doubt broken many laws, including computer misuse (see Sony above), cartel operations etc.etc. I'm not saying Dotcom is any better, but he certainly isn't any worse.

                I think you also need to question why someone who was running a mechanism is being pursued in the manner, when others are getting away with it. Yes, he owned a file sharing site and may well have been aware of illicit goings on with the site, such as copyright violation. However, ISPs are providing the network and are perfectly aware that copyright violation is occurring over their connections and are doing little about it. So, how come one is OK and the other not? Either way, it's a facility being knowingly abused and the owner of the facility doing not a lot to stop it.

                Difference is, ISPs are big business and bought themselves a law exempting themselves from liability, but companies/individuals running file sharing sites couldn't afford the bribe!!

                1. Dr Stephen Jones

                  Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                  @Mad Mad Mad Mike:

                  I have just explained to you that tax evasion and tax avoidance are different. I'm sorry you still can't acknowledge that you confused the two, but at least now you may be a little wiser.

                  "The music and film industry have beyond any reasonable doubt broken many laws, including computer misuse (see Sony above), cartel operations etc.etc. I'm not saying Dotcom is any better, but he certainly isn't any worse."

                  Yep. Mad Mike's jaw is still moving. It must keep moving. It has to keep moving...

                  Mike, you're drawing a moral equivalence between industries that pay their labour, and pay their taxes, and Kim Dotcom, who doesn't pay the labour and doesn't pay the taxes.

                  You've just had the ethical emptiness of your argument handed to you on a plate, but you still think repeating the same argument you started with is going to work. Wow. Admit it, you're in new territory here aren't you?

                  1. Mad Mike

                    Re: UKIP ranter I expect

                    @Dr Stephen Jones.

                    It's a shame you can't reason beyond studios..........angels and Dotcom..........devil.

                    I can see there are all sorts of shades of grey and that both are neither fully angels nor devils, but somewhere inbetween. However, this level of reasoning seems beyond you. You see everything as perfect black and white with corporates seemingly white and anyone doing anything against them/opposing them as black. Basic binary thinking of the most limited nature.

                    I also explained to you why the difference you cite between evasion and avoidance is very blurred now in the UK at least. In the UK, if you setup something with the sole reason to avoid taxation (what would have been called tax avoidance), this is now considered evasion and illegal. A new law was passed by this government that brought this into effect and several people have fallen foul of it already.

                    For an example, see Jimmy Carr. He setup a mechanism that was prior to this law perfectly legal tax avoidance. It was a financial mechanism (involing the Channel Islands) with the sole purpose of avoiding income tax. I can tell you how it worked if you like, but I suspect it's beyond you. As it was determined by the HMRC that its sole purpose was to avoid income tax, this law made it tax evasion and therefore he got into a lot of trouble, has had to pay a lot of money to HMRC and took a lot of stick in the press. You could also look up Gary Barlow for another example of a famous name who has come a cropper on this one.

                    Indeed, the new law is slightly at odds with some other laws. There are special tax arrangements for people who invest in certain things, like films for instance. However, as these arrangements would be used solely to avoid tax, the new law could make them evasion!! Various tax laws are potentially at odds. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) taken a case to the courts for a judgement and I suspect none will as the new law appears to be used only in selected cases.

                    So, if you're based in the UK and looking to try and avoid tax, I would suggest you contact an accountant first as your rather poor knowledge of the law around this would put you at serious risk.

                    If you read my post, I think you'll find that I acknowledged both evasion and avoidance and that they were different. I simply pointed out that the new law was making a lot of avoidance into evasion and therefore blurring the lines. Ask any accountant, this is the case. Of course, this doesn't match your binary nature where everything has to be either good or bad, so you made up what I said. Effectively, I was saying that avoidance is a grey area with the new law, but as grey areas don't exist to you..............

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: UKIP ranter I expect

              Correct me if I am wrong (I don't support the mass distribution of copyright material, I think if it's good, it should be paid for), but MegaUpload was just a hosting site for other people to post content.

              Is it reasonable therefore, for the site administrators to examine ALL the content uploaded, measure what is downloaded, and then go manually drawing up agreements with every film distribution and audio company to pay royalties?

          2. Levente Szileszky

            Re: UKIP ranter I expect

            "That's a tax dodge. Everyone involved in making those movies got paid."

            Haha, nice BS, not to mention the clear admission of a tax fraud - when will I see VPOTUS Joey Biden deploying the DoJ prosecutorial forces against his OWN HANDLERS like you?

      3. foo_bar_baz

        Re: UKIP ranter I expect

        You might have had a point, but it was lost somewhere in the midst of manic ranting and ugly ad hominems. Talk about pots and kettles. ^^

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: UKIP ranter I expect

          Very funny. I have noticed how "MAFFIA" and "Copyright cartel" go nicely with "ZaNuLieBore" or "LibLabCon".

          Copyright fighters are the UKIP of the tech world. Is it the same people?

      4. John Tserkezis

        Re: UKIP ranter I expect

        "Borrow one off a mate. Nobody makes you buy stuff."

        You do realise that to the Studios, borrowing is equivalent to stealing?

        Two people consume content, one pays. Now you know why they're DRMing everything. They're working on changing the model to force a one buy, one consume.

        "If something is too expensive then don't buy it, you asshole."

        You do realise that if they succeed with their new model, there will be higher gross prices paid for each product, regardless of the fact there will be less overall consumption.

        It WILL be more expensive, but rest assured that you don't have to buy it, you asshole.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: UKIP ranter I expect

          Why do you feel the need to resort to rudeness and insults? Part of a superiority complex from which you suffer, perhaps?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: UKIP ranter I expect

          "You do realise that if they succeed with their new model, there will be higher gross prices paid for each product, regardless of the fact there will be less overall consumption. It WILL be more expensive, but rest assured that you don't have to buy it, you asshole."

          Wait - something that won't exist because nobody will pay for it so it doesn't get made will be more expensive (in your imagination)?

          That's genius. I didn't realise you were a Man Of The People until now.

      5. Mad Mike

        Re: UKIP ranter I expect

        @Dr Stephen Jones.

        "If something is too expensive then don't buy it, you asshole. Borrow one off a mate. Nobody makes you buy stuff. All round your argument is completely morally bankrupt."

        What was your doctorate in? Calling people names? As a person of learning, you will of course know that resorting to name calling and insulting is generally a sign of having no argument or, at least, being unable to articulate it.

        1. Don Jefe

          Re: UKIP ranter I expect

          Responding to those sorts is also a recognition of their point, the argument goes, so the ultimate response is none at all :)

        2. Dr Stephen Jones

          Re: UKIP ranter I expect

          "insulting is generally a sign of having no argument"

          This is true, I have been very unfair.

          1. Most 13-year-olds are capable of distinguishing between something that they can do, and something that is morally justifoable. Just because something is easy to do, that does not compel somebody to do, nor does it make that act ethically defensible.

          For example: "It is easy for me to steal from Granny's purse. Because I can, I will, and it is OK". Most 13-year olds know this is not morally defensible. Similarly they will not justify theft because something they want is "too expensive".

          So I apologise unreservedly to any 13-year old for comparing them to copyright activists.

          2. Most UKIP supporters appear to have spouses, girlfriends and families, and have achieved some measure of career success. It is very unfair to imply they are socially maladjusted nerds who haven't got a girlfriend.

          So I apologise unreservedly to any UKIP supporters for comparing them to copyright activists.

      6. Salacious Crumb

        Re: UKIP ranter I expect

        "What you have forgotten is that Hollywood studios generally do pay the people who do the work. (Clue: the workers go on strike when they don't). So do publishers and record labels. Most often in the music industry at least, it's the managers who rip off the artist."

        http://konvexity.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/what-accounting-lesson-winston-groom-learned-from-the-movie-forrest-gump/

        http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: UKIP ranter I expect

        Original AC here, figure I'll respond to the kind drs points.

        Primarily the last two paragraphs, first and foremost I do support independent artists, authors and in some cases studios. Generally via purchase of merchandise and CDs sold directly by the bands at gigs, normally directly after the gig or during a rest between sets.

        Secondly if something is too expensive I tend not to buy it, I didn't state anywhere in my original post that I condoned illegally downloading of content. I haven't purchased a CD from stores or a mainstream band since the late 90s, in that time I have not illegally downloaded any music either.

        Likewise with movies, I couldn't justify paying the money for a DVD which I would only watch once, so instead I stopped watching DVDs, of course there were the odd DVDs I would buy now and then, normally when they were on sale.

        As for your comment before about myself sounding like a 13 year old autistic, you did get part of that right, I do have Aspergers, however the rest of your argument holds about as much water as a teaspoon with several small holes in the middle.

        Also have to find it entertaining that you think i'm a UKIP voter. I tend to vote green.

      8. Levente Szileszky

        Re: UKIP ranter I expect

        Obvious paid MAFRIAA trolls are always obvious...

        "What you have forgotten is that Hollywood studios generally do pay the people who do the work. (Clue: the workers go on strike when they don't). So do publishers and record labels. Most often in the music industry at least, it's the managers who rip off the artist."

        HAHAHAHA, thanks for the morning laugh.... FYI unequivocally it's ALWAYS THE STUDIOS who RIP OFF EVERY ARTISTS unless they come with a powerfull (=expensive) attorney and ESPECIALLY in the music business.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Geoff Campbell
    Thumb Up

    Clever move.

    You can say what you like about the guy, but he has a certain style.

    GJC

    1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      What thread are you from?

      What has this got to do with all the rants about finance?

  4. OzBob

    Here's an idea

    if you are going to think up a way of allowing people to share copyrighted files, read some of the prior art (like Napster and Piratebay) and make sure you are dancing on the right side of the legal ambiguities. And if you stand up and go "nya nya nya", you make yourself a target.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Here's an idea

      That's not prior set. That's a business model and not protected by IP regulation :)

    2. dan1980

      Re: Here's an idea

      @OzBob

      But here's the thing - Mega Upload was there to share files. That's it. From a technical perspective, the service was agnostic regarding the copyright terms of any uploaded files.

      The central question in these cases is really about how much responsibility a given service should have for the content traversing it. As a poster above said, ISPs are not legally responsible for what goes over their networks. The current situation is that filesharing sites ARE, though how this, really, is different, I don't know.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No matter what the outcome is, this probably end up being a Hollywood film.

    1. d3rrial

      With Taylor Wily in the lead role

      1. TeaLeaf

        I think a better choice...

        for the lead would be Rob Ford. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rob-ford-s-statement-on-leave-of-absence-1.2627937 He's at least as big a dick as Dotcom.

  6. Mad Mike

    Both Sides Wrong

    This is really a case where both sides are wrong and have behaved very poorly.

    Did Dotcom know what was going on with his website.....yes. Did he try very hard to stop it.......probably not. So, Dotcom holds a certain responsibility.

    Did the studios etc. take gross advantage, start running cartels (against the law) and generally rip everyone off......yes. Have they obviously broken the law and got away with it......yes, Sony for instance with their DRM installing software on your computer without permission.

    So, both sides seem to have behaved badly and should be castigated for it.

    The big difference is that Dotcom may have made some millions out of it over a relatively short period of time. However, the studios have been making tens of billions over several decades and taking the p**s out of the taxpayer at the same time by pretending their films (even big box office smashes) made losses!! Not that they're alone in the corporate world on that one.

    So, who is the crook.....both. Who is the bigger crook....the studios. Who's likely to get prosecuted and sent to jail for it........Dotcom.

    Doesn't quite seem fair somehow. Whenever some people or corporations can flout the law at will and not suffer the consequences, whilst others do, you know your justice system is broken and a broken justice system is respected by nobody.

    1. Dr Stephen Jones

      Re: Both Sides Wrong

      "So, who is the crook.....both. Who is the bigger crook....the studios."

      You so badly need that to be true, to find moral equivalence between the two, it hurts.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Both Sides Wrong

        @Dr Stephen Jones.

        "You so badly need that to be true, to find moral equivalence between the two, it hurts."

        I don't NEED it to be true. I'm looking at it objectively and I can see that Dotcom has some liability and may well have broken some laws. However, I can also see that the studios (of various natures) have also broken laws (but somehow avoided prosecution) and also have some very dubious business practices. So, given the studios relative size to Dotcom, in money terms, they're probably the bigger crooks.

        Don't forget prosecutions rarely have anything to do with breaking the law. This is especially so in the USA, but is getting that way in the UK too. Companies do things that individuals do as well, yet the individual gets prosecuted, but the company does not......go figure. A good example if the Sony rootkit. If an individual did that, they'd be in jail. But Sony, not a squeak.

        So, Dotcom is not innocent and I've never said he is. I'm just questioning the moral 'high ground' the studios claim to occupy and judging whether this is true or not.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Both Sides Wrong

      Mad Mike gives us ... all the usual dingbat cliches.... but with added ellipses.... typed while Mike looks out of the window looking for MAFFIA agents.... and adjusts his....tinfoil hat.

      Screwy punctuation is usually the giveaway of a nutter. Hey, Mike: did you know you can use full stops / periods *in the middle of a paragraph* and not just at the end?

      The comparison with UKIP is very funny.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Both Sides Wrong

        @AC

        "Mad Mike gives us ... all the usual dingbat cliches.... but with added ellipses.... typed while Mike looks out of the window looking for MAFFIA agents.... and adjusts his....tinfoil hat.

        Screwy punctuation is usually the giveaway of a nutter. Hey, Mike: did you know you can use full stops / periods *in the middle of a paragraph* and not just at the end?

        The comparison with UKIP is very funny."

        Apart from not having the guts to publish under a name..........

        No argument, no reason, no logic, just abuse. Given the punctuation shown above, I assume you're not familiar with its use either!!

  7. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

    Poor Lil' Kim

    Yes Kimble, life is unfair. Tell you what, when you can demonstrate you've been fair in all your dealings, have not made money by helping people to nick stuff, and do not have a previous conviction for fraud, then I will back your $5m.

    How the fuck this bleating, self-pitying hypocrite got NZ citizenship I don't know. I bet someone at the immigration department has had a strip torn off him over that one.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Poor Lil' Kim

      Kiwi's sell citizenship too. Almost every country does. Citizenship for sale is basically a loss leader for tax revenue. All in all it's not a terrible idea, but the prerequisites are fairly simple and the financial cost isn't terribly high either. And pretty much like any other citizenship program, you're going to get all sorts coming in that way.

      I have no opinion on Kim Dotcom, I don't know what 'sort' he really is, I was only commenting on the fact citizenship isn't a special thing, it's for sale like anything else.

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: Poor Lil' Kim

        True, but even for the filthy rich there's normally a good character test as part of the application which seems to have been missed here. Just a thought, but maybe they should have googled him?

        1. Levente Szileszky

          Re: Poor Lil' Kim

          "even for the filthy rich there's normally a good character test as part of the application"

          No, that's never part of it or you wouldn't have all the bloody dictator kids, Russian oil/commodity/etc oligarchs & all the mobsters & financial parasites of the world living in London now, all with citizenship obtained by writing a fat check and promising they won't shoot up each other within the UK.

          A citizenship with nice weather starts around $100k (eg Dominican), for $250k you will be a resident of a Caribbean island and get rid of any pesky income taxation (St Kitts & Nevins) but if you want really unrestricted EU membership w/ nice Mediterranean weather, visa-free US travel etc a Maltese one is around ~$700-800k but if that's too much then just buying a property for ~350k euros in Bulgaria will net you an EU-compatible citizenship...

    2. Vaughan 1

      Re: Poor Lil' Kim

      He didn't get citizenship, only permanent residency and that was after some degree of lobbying to the immigration department (I think). This is also why he cannot be elected to parliament with his "political" party.

    3. Levente Szileszky

      Re: Poor Lil' Kim

      Right after the same NZ gov lowlifes answered the question: how on Earth these minions in NZ just agreed to deploy SWAT teams & break the door on a guy who was living with his wife and kids there, all based on a foreign request about accusations of a nonviolent offense...? Was it backed by a push from some US higher-up (eg VPOTUS Biden is a well-known agent of the MAFRIAA in the WH)...?

      Though I admit I like the way he fights back, these Hollywood parasites deserve way worse, but after all I couldn't care less about Kim in general if the scumbags in Hollywood would fight fairly - but they never do, they are just scumbags, they cannot change. I'm all for going after real criminals and terrorists around the globe but this is clearly ridiculous... but the biggest mystery to me is just how pathetic these lapdog governments of these super-subservient countries are (NZ and Australian)... is it something because they are so happy to be included in the NSA-led FIVE EYES or is it really just simply the lowest of servant lowlifes who make up these governments, who simply do not give a crap about their own citizens...? I mean it's great for the US, sure, I agree but most people see these gov and they are pretty disgusted, for sure...

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Desperate criminal

    He'll do anything to try and stay out of prison but there is a cell with his name on it just waiting. He'll be a lot thinner when he emerges from prison than he is now.

    1. Busby

      Re: Desperate criminal

      So you're advocating those found guilty of copyright related crimes should be starved?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You'd think if they had a real proper case they simply have charged him with out all the previous shenanigans and what not.

    So let him do a few shenanigans as well. Couldn't hurt, and will likely be entertaining.

  10. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    As time goes past, our Kim is looking better and better (he'll never achieve snow whiteness though) and the authorities and corporations attacking him are looking progressively more like Mafia gangsters.

    Certainly they've long since past any pretense of administering justice.

    1. Mad Mike

      I particularly liked the 'assault' on his mansion. It was pure Hollywood theatre!! I wonder who the studios got to choreograph the assault? Mind you, the camera work wasn't great and I would expect better from a major studio.

      It's amazing how something that is actually a CIVIL offence ends up with all sorts of federal and state resources on it. The studios should simply sue Dotcom through the courts in NZ, which is the prescribed mechanism for this sort of offence. But no, they send in big guns and in doing so, almost make him into a hero.

      Dotcom is definitely no angel, but compared to the forces lined up against him, he's really beginning to look like the whiter one of the two!!

      1. Vaughan 1

        I'm not saying if it was right or wrong but my understanding is that they want him for more than just copyright infringement. IIRC there were conspiracy charges and money laundering as well but he has managed the PR so well on this that it is about the big bad studios stomping on the little (well not so little) guy.

        The amount he pops up in the news over here is ridiculous, keeps promising all sorts of things or is in court over one thing or another. His political party is a joke, he has formed an alliance with a far left party just to work our MMP system to get a far left politician (he picked as the leader of his Internet Party) in to parliament to do his dirty work. Hopefully come September the voters realise what a joke this is and they get nowhere near parliament.

        1. Mad Mike

          @Vaughan 1.

          I agree with much of what you've said. However, at the moment, they seem to be going after copyright only and not pursuing the rest. Not sure why. If they can get him for fraud or tax evasion or whatever, maybe it could help bring these events to a close. They don't seem to be doing too well on the copyright charges. This is probably largely to do with copyright being a civil offence, which limits their options. If they went after criminal offences, their hands are less tied.

          I guess only time will tell. However, at the moment, Dotcom is seen as a bit of a hero amongst the very large number of people fed up with the actions of the major studios and recording companies etc. A bit of your enemies enemy is your friend!!

          1. Levente Szileszky

            Most likely they have a sealed indictment waiting for him to be arrested, with the whole book thrown at him...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Big Mistake

    Kim should have based himself in London/Silicon Roundabout, and got some ex-government ministers on the payroll as directors.

    1. tekgun

      Re: Big Mistake

      I think the Hollywood Police...no wait I mean the Internet Police no that's not it, I mean City Of London Police would have something to say about that.

  12. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Trick or Treat? MegaMetaData Plays behind Closed Doors for SysAdmin to keep Secret for Themselves?

    So you are trying to invent a second 'wrong' and give it moral equivalence to Kim Dotcom's wrong. Which means that paying people is bad, but not paying them is about the same - equally bad.

    If you don't like Hollywood, you should support independent studios, independent publishers, independent labels, independent film-makers and so on - rather than ranting like a socially inadequate (and probably autistic) 13-year old idiot on the internet.

    If something is too expensive then don't buy it, you asshole. Borrow one off a mate. Nobody makes you buy stuff. All round your argument is completely morally bankrupt. …. Dr Stephen Jones

    Err, Hi, What’s up, Doc,

    Media, as I’m sure even the educated fool knows, is used in films and television and newsprint and radio and registering world wide web pages internetworking with browsers to supply banks of servers fodder and FUD, to brainwash and provide dumb primitive animals and/or smarter virtual machines, ideally, a heavily and heavenly engineered universal perception of realities which be delivered with tools down on Earth. IT is that simple and creative and/or destructive and disruptive.

    To think to charge for one’s own brainwashing to experience the disasters and politically incorrect shenanigans on Earth is a titanic morally bankrupt and criminal folly, which is designed to maintain a perverse and corrupt inequitable status quo hierarchy hell bent on the remote virtual retention of anonymous command and control and power with their direction and production of paper monies, and its confiscations and interest charging taxations. Such an experience should be for free and of one’s own choosing, is another more valid proposition and reality and such a service which provides such a choice is surely to be highly recommended and supported globally by any and all right thinking persons and the economically enslaved and systemically deprived?

    Regarding the specific … Borrow one off a mate. Nobody makes you buy stuff. …. Is that not what Megaupload allowed one to do by steering one in the right direction to mates who wanted to share stuff that they had bought/had been bought and paid for?

    Is it the System’s and the Fed’s and Hollywood’s intention that everyone pays forever and a day for the stuff they are printing and producing to brainwash and enslave them to their crazy world views and austere realities.

    Methinks it be high noon time for better beta virtual realities and Greater IntelAIgent Game Players to burst that mad bubble with thousands of pricks …. for with CyberIntelAIgent Creative Command and Computer Control of Communications is a New Orderly World Order entirely possible and presently running and testing novel noble betas for replacement of past failures which be hindering future reprogramming.

    Deny it if you will, but that is the present virtual reality in play here and sharing itself for free around worlds into Advanced and IntelAIgent Quantum Communications, where this might be that and also something else and quite different from even those possibilities thought of.

    And whenever you know the command and control of what IT can do is freely being offered to that and/or those who you may have earlier perceived as being in control of your future well-being ….. and a short leading list of those would make an interesting global read …. what do you think should be their response. Gracious and Grateful Acceptance or MAD Refusal and Idiotic Sub-Prime Rejection?

    There’s a lot going on out there, El Reg, and you have no small part to play to define everything you stand up and tall for, which be the SMARTR Root Route in such as be Sensationally Sensitive Cyber Matters. Playing a small part, however, has one always reduced to alternate opportunities with realities starring camp followers, and although highly valued, by no means able to be perceived as highly valuable.

    Thoughts for the 0dDay …….. It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. …… [Joseph Goebbels] ….. and to mentor and monitor ITs phormation of programs and projects for Global Operating Devices for Remote Command and Virtual Control of Manipulative Systems be a Quantum Leap for Man and Giant Step for Mankind in CyberIntelAIgent Fields of SMARTR Exploitation and Alien Exploration in Systems of Operation.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hollywood is the most invisible instrument of power, that creates and modifies at will the image of the american dream to distill the mentality aspirations and essentially 'direct' the life of people. Some people might disagree with my grand disillusion with it , even though i do concede that they have the most impressive means and wonderful people/technologies. We can fairly say that it guides/orients the population yet reflects its situation. And since the world is becoming less and less original / commercialise/comoditised well so are movies nowadays. (give or take a handful of 'hollywood' successes this century, even with the most impressive strides in techniques).

    If i put my UKIP hat on , i can safetly say it's under Zionist control and if they are not influencing it they are reaping the benefits at least. When I take it off I just realised it's all remakes /rehashes in a way or another and reaching absolute inanity in terms of added value at every iteration. So I say their biggest crime is not being good enough for the aspirations of the American people. More seriously though but perhaps in the same spirit, I think monopoly laws are constantly subverted and if previously declared theories are even remotely close to truth there would be massive breaches of conflict of interest laws. And I suspect loads of crime of silencing up people who speak up against their corruption etc... So look for bribery as well but perhaps less chance of finding traces of that one. :p

    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      If anyone can tell me what relevance this has to Kim Dotcom, please award yourself a cookie.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021