Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy United States Your Rights Online

Kim Dotcom Offers the DoJ a Deal 383

Posted by Soulskill
from the bearding-the-lion-in-his-den dept.
Master Moose sends this quote from Stuff.co.nz: "Kim Dotcom claims the United States criminal case against him is collapsing but he is offering to go there without extradition provided federal authorities unfreeze his millions of dollars. In a now hallmark style, he made the offer on Twitter. 'Hey DOJ, we will go to the US,' he tweeted, 'No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers & living expenses.' In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter Dotcom says the department knows it does not have a case. 'If they are forced to provide discovery, then there will be no extradition. That's why they don't want to provide discovery. If they had a case, they would not need to hide what they have.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kim Dotcom Offers the DoJ a Deal

Comments Filter:
  • by Wakko Warner (324) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:06PM (#40609111) Homepage Journal

    The US should cut its losses, give the dude his servers and money back, and go after some actual criminals. This is just pathetic.

    • by linatux (63153) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:12PM (#40609155)

      I think they should also repay what this has cost the NZ taxpayers.

    • Are you making that claim based on legal knowledge of the case or are you just talking out your ass? As I have read [nytimes.com], the case is based on private emails of the indicted:

      It quotes extensively from correspondence among the defendants, who work for Megaupload and its related sites. The correspondence, the indictment says, shows that the operators knew the site contained unauthorized content.

      The indictment cites an e-mail from last February, for example, in which three members of the group discussed an article about how to stop the government from seizing domain names.

      The Megaupload case is unusual, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, in that federal prosecutors obtained the private e-mails of Megaupload’s operators in an effort to show they were operating in bad faith.

      “The government hopes to use their private words against them,” Mr. Kerr said. “This should scare the owners and operators of similar sites.”

      And it hinges not on the evidence seized at the arrest in NZ but apparently on emails detailing the deliberate actions of the site's proprietors to make copyrighted content widely available not just to the customers who uploaded these files, but to any visitors to the site. If you read some discussion of real legal analysis [arstechnica.com], things don't lo

      • by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:46PM (#40609429)
        The seizures of servers were not for evidence, but for punishment. Punitive seizures is one of the reasons the Constitution required proper warrants. The US no longer follows its own laws (Constitution), but requires everyone else follow its laws.

        And there's nothing to say that it couldn't be spun that they knew the US was unreasonable (as proven so far in this case) and they knew they had *some* infringing material, so they looked into prudent defensive measures. What they *should* have done is to use a lawyer as a remailer service to discuss everything, then even if the emails are seized, they could not be used. A few emails out of context indicating they knew infringing material was shared on the Internet doesn't prove they created the service for the purpose of infringing or anything else that *might* be illegal in the US (and almost nowhere else). He didn't publish or distribute anything. It's akin to suing the makers of trash cans for terrorism if a terrorist puts a bomb in them, as that's a known attack vector and they still make trash cans for profit that could be used against the US.
      • by whoever57 (658626)

        If you read some discussion of real legal analysis, things don't look so rosy for fat old K. Dotcom.

        Analysis that is based on snippets of emails included in the indictment and we know that the FBI would never use those snippets out of context or misrepresent the meaning or import of the reported email snippets, don't we?

        [if you think that the FBI would not use snippets out of context in order to make a case, then I have a bridge to sell you]

        • It is certainly true that legal wrangling can rule out all kinds of potentially damning "evidence" for various reasons. That's hardly a reason to call the case a joke. Those emails may yet stand up in court. That arstechnica article I linked certainly suggests the case has legs.

      • by strikethree (811449) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @09:17PM (#40609691) Journal

        Did you read the emails in question? If not, why do you believe the characterizations of the emails made by people who intend to prosecute him?

        Assuming the characterizations are accurate, were any of them written by the owner? Do they mention him in such as a way as to indicate that he knew what this "group of people" who worked for him knew? Why aren't the people who actually wrote the emails being charged?

        From my point of view, it looks like he is probably guilty. He needs to convicted on proof though, not on what it looks like. Are we really going to convict this guy before he has his day in court? If he gets out of having to face his day in court, it is only due to incompetence on the part of the people prosecuting the supposed crime.

    • and go after some actual criminals

      Hey, now, threatening the corporate profits [slashgear.com] of campaign donors is a crime these days.

  • by Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:11PM (#40609143)
    Once he's over there, they'll keep him.
    • This is what I was thinking. Even if the current case falls over, would they not try to book him on something else?

      Whilst in New Zealand, the US DoJ needs a larger stick to touch him. Entering the Lions den surely has the potential to put him at a larger disadvantage than he is in now?

    • You are exactly right. Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in cases like this. It would not surprise me at all for the prosecutors to say, "Okay, we'll take you up on that!" then arrest him and throw him in jail as soon as his plane lands. If this guy is smart, he won't set foot anywhere near the United States or a U.S. extradition-friendly country. They can and will lie out of their asses to get him.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:27PM (#40609273) Homepage

    It's a bunch of fat worthless leeches trying to kill a tick that's fastened on to them

    There's no good guy here, it's just parasites vying to see who has the biggest stomach. If only there's a way that they can all lose.

    • by steelfood (895457) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:37PM (#40609353)

      Yeah, but if Kim Dotcom loses, a lot of legitimate data whom the copyright holders themselves uploaded to the service (including files the U.S. military uploaded) gets lost as well.

      They've effectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And I imagine they've pissed off more people domestic and international than they can imagine. This is exactly the kind of behavior we've all come to expect from decades of granting the federal government ever-increasing powers to control and limit the freedoms of the individual, whether these are U.S. citizens or not. It is also only the beginning of what's to come if we as a people don't make a stand.

      • by tomhath (637240)
        If they uploaded to a site like that and threw away their only backup they're idiots.
      • by Nemyst (1383049)

        This isn't about the federal government growing, it's about institutionalizing corruption. The US has basically bowed to lobbyists and let them control everything.

        Or do you really think the states would do a better job than the federal government?

    • Mod parent up.

  • Ummm, why would they (FBI and media cartels) agree to this? The punishment of frozen assets is much better than risking not being able to punish at all.

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      Ummm, why would they (FBI and media cartels) agree to this? The punishment of frozen assets is much better than risking not being able to punish at all.

      As pointless as "calling your bluff" is in poker playing: if the called player is not doing it, then it becomes pretty clear to everybody he's not playing by the rules.

Real Users hate Real Programmers.

Working...