Kim Dotcom Offers the DoJ a Deal 383
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 case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US should cut its losses, give the dude his servers and money back, and go after some actual criminals. This is just pathetic.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they should also repay what this has cost the NZ taxpayers.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they should pay the host for the expenses of keeping the data for the period that they've frozen Kim Dotcom's accounts.
As such, I believe they're just stalling for time so that the host and/or Kim himself (and any other of his associates) goes bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Psst. Guess what? I know of a certain Lensman who would take offense to that statement. And Rudyard Kipling isn't amused with you either :)
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Funny)
The dude's name is "Kim Dotcom" and you're focused on the "Kim" part?
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
The dude's name is actually Kim Schmitz. But that didn't sound sexy enough for the sleazebag, so he went by several alias names over the years, partially to cover his identity (he was convicted of computer fraud for the first time in 1998). He legally changed his name to "Dotcom", but I personally disregard such clear and obvious publicity stunts.
He's a career criminal, and even back then he was disdained in his original german hacker scene. Leaving Germany was partially because he couldn't fuck people over here anymore, pretty much everyone who was anyone knew not to work with him.
He is one of those assholes who give all of us a bad name. He is a criminal, a crook, a scammer. If you wonder why normal people think that we are all anti-social half-criminals, Kim is part of the answer.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:4, Insightful)
He legally changed his name to "Dotcom", but I personally disregard such clear and obvious publicity stunts.
I personally think it's funny. Anyway, thanks a lot for letting thousands of /. readers know about your opinion, no matter how unimportant or irrelevant it might be.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
This does not exempt him from due process. If the US DOJ fucked up their case and have no legal grounds to continue what they are doing, then the fact that this guy is dodgey has no relevance to the situation.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
People are rooting for 'due process' (which he has been denied, and he has been the target of an illegal home invasion), and you are confusing rooting for justice, with rooting for the individual, an old but still common mistake.
If you or I conduct an illegal home invasion, we rightly get put in jail, so I'm wondering (/sarcasm) who will go to jail for this illegal home invasion. I'm guessing 'nobody' - what we are tired of is officials being above the law, i.e. we live by one set of laws, and they live above those laws.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:4, Informative)
It is only 1.5 times more common for Kim to female than male, according to gpeters. So if you take hundred Kims, 40 of them are male.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Funny)
It is only 1.5 times more common for Kim to female than male, according to gpeters. So if you take hundred Kims, 40 of them are male.
But most of them are Korean, so it can be hard to tell.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Funny)
So if you take hundred Kims, 40 of them are male.
Sounds like a party.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:4, Funny)
But Kim ain't a girl! (Firefly)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kimberly is a girls name. Kimburly is a mans name.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the New Zealand government didn't want to pay for their part in it they shouldn't have TAKEN part in it...
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As an American, I think a case could be made for giving NZ control of our DOJ.
As a New Zealander, I wholeheartedly agree with your proposal.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Funny)
the Kiwis need to man up
No doubt. In fact, they're probably feeling a bit sheepish right now.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not really 'sovereignty' that ought to be put first, per se --- it's universal principles of justice, like due process, and not conducting illegal home invasions (i.e. home invasion without a proper warrant, etc.) - regardless of who asks for them. Sovereignty is a bit of a red herring issue, in that it distracts from the more real underlying principles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is a fair 'stupidity tax'. As a Kiwi, I feel we should be putting more pressure on our government to make the police a public resource rather than a government/foreign resource. It's our own fault, it is actually very easy to change governments in New Zealand. We have full elections every three years, and many parties which actually DO have a say. E.g. our 'right wing' government, despite being a majority government, actually makes a lot of concessions all of the Green Party, the Maori (indigenou
Your opinion is a joke (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:Your opinion is a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Your opinion is a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
You should read the arstechnica article Iinked. It offers a different slant that you might find informative (and much more legally sound than our armchair opinions):
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/legal-experts-say-megaupload-faces-long-odds/ [arstechnica.com]
Re:Your opinion is a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
That is written based on the indictment. Why would you trust that anything in this indictment is factual?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, duh. MegaUpload hired well-known artists, and paid them, to produce an original music video, and was planning to release more original songs as legal downloads. (YouTube [youtu.be])
Incidentally, the RIAA responded by taking the video down, using YouTube's DMCA take-down system, and when MegaUpload sued them for abusing the DMCA system, they RIAA defended themselves by claiming that they never made a formal DMCA take-down reqeust; they just pushed the button that YouTube gave them to take down videos.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Your opinion is a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully the stupid legal actions of law enforcement don't jeopardize the case
I believe the most idiotic legal action of them all was going after someone for this in the first place. A colossal waste of taxpayer money, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
and go after some actual criminals
Hey, now, threatening the corporate profits [slashgear.com] of campaign donors is a crime these days.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Next up, youtube...
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, YouTube was the Napster protection scam except with video. "Psst. Pay us money and we'll stop our users from ripping you off."
Of course, the key difference is that YouTube was financed by top silicon valley VC and purchased by blue-chip "Do No Evil" Google, so they got away with it. If Youtube was run by 'Kim Dotcom' and the 'Mega-Conspiracy', it's kneecaps would have been taken-out just like Napster's were.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube was established and still deals mostly in uploads shared by their creators. Their defense against charges of copyright infringement has been to remove infringing material as it is pointed out to them. Megaupload's response has been open defiance and taunting.
That's not what I read. When MegaUpload's received take-down requests from American companies, they've removed the infringing links on American servers, but let them remain on servers in other countries, which is entirely correct of them, since copyright laws are different in different countries.
For example, here in Sweden, I'm allowed to upload my legally purchased film or music album (format-shifting) and then share it with a close circle of friends. In some countries, it's legal to copy from anyone for private use. I'd be pretty annoyed if my (legal) copy of a film or album disappeared from the servers just because an American uploaded the same file illegally.
Needless to say, the American media companies didn't like this. They want American law to apply all over the world.
When several persons uploaded the same (identical) file, MegaUpload produced different links to the same copy of the file (de-duplication). When they received take-down requests, they only removed the links which were included in the take-down request, and let the file and the other links remain. Again, this is correct of them, since the same file may be uploaded illegally by some users and legally by others.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
when he is neither the sharer, the viewer, nor the author.
He's the "fixer". He gets you what you want, because he knows someone who has it and can arrange delivery without fuss and bother on your part.This is a perfectly legit role to have in the scheme of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when it's deemed by a court to violate some law somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
So true. Especially all those laws in random countries around the world that taken together would forbid pretty anything you'd ever want to do. Quick, we must declare worldwide martial law.
Oh, wait. Maybe the role of a disinterested courier actually is legitimate.
Re: (Score:3)
You also have to read the indictment (and some decent legal analysis). The case hinges around private correspondence from the Megaupload guys in which they incriminate themselves by specifically organizing to make copyrighted works available. They are hardly disinterested couriers.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you've ever studied the law, then you know there are lots of cases in which someone seemed clearly guilty -- according to the prosecutor's indictment -- and at the end turned out to be completely innocent. Sometimes they wind up in jail before the facts come out.
When prosecutors write memos to themselves, they give the strengths and weaknesses of their case. When they write indictments, and when they present their case to the grand jury, they leave out the weaknesses.
Happens all the time. That's why we have jury trials. That's why we have a Bill of Rights.
Oh, Kim Dotcom hasn't had a jury trial yet, hasn't had a chance to see the evidence against him, and hasn't had a chance to defend himself against it? Then how do you know he's guilty?
In fact, why is it right for them to confiscate all his assets, even the money that he needs to pay his lawyers to defend him against these charges?
Re: (Score:2)
I won't get into the legalities, but I don't think a "fixer" is entitled to 100% of the profit.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
In my days those "fixers" were known as Fairlight and Razor 1911 among others. They were seen as living gods and provided thousands of "fixed" games. None of them got rich on it but did it for fun and fame. The readme files even encouraged you to buy the games they ripped if you liked them.
Razor1911 are still around and they are still awesome, they still probably aren't rich either.
Fairlight pretty much WERE razor as I understand it.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps because MegaUpload had started to hire artists and was planning to release original music downloads, thus putting them into direct competition with the traditional music companies.
That would also explain why the music companies abused the DMCA system to remove MegaUpload's ad from YouTube, even though it contained no infringing material. (YouTube [youtu.be])
Re: (Score:2)
I was on one of their hubs in my local scene before it was shutdown. It was a really nice BBS. I miss those days.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Copyright infringement is not theft.
2. He facilitates criminal activity the same way as power companies and isp facilitate criminal activity. It's just easier to pin on him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are too much obsessed with that country called "United States"...
Re: (Score:3)
I guess Kim Dotcom is lucky that he resides in New Zealand, not the USA, then. As does his company.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot. It's not theft. Cary Sherman? Is that you hiding as an AC?
Re: (Score:3)
"Aiding and abetting theft is not a legit role. Kim Dotdouche facilitated criminal activity, and he got what he deserved."
Errr, there was no theft!!! I assume that you are American, so I assume that you understand English... Theft means to take something from someone with the intention of permanently depriving them of that thing. He did not deprive or take anything. Get over the pathetic drama. We are talking about he allowed people to copy other peoples stuff, just like looking at pictures in a shop w
Re: (Score:3)
Not even... he provided a service that allowed people to allow other people to copy stuff that they posted, which may have been infringing on copyright. That's up to the people posting it.
That it's a crime is mostly a U.S. invention (with little Punch and Judy puppets acting it out in other countries within their hegemony as well)
I've seen it said multiple times in multiple discussions that they should "grow up". Indeed... it's pretty silly to think that they are going to stop people from sharing files. Get
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
The service was shut down in January when authorities in New Zealand raided Dotcom's $24 million compound in Coatesville, a small town not far from Auckland.
So basically, this guy bought a $24 million house by selling ad space and premium accounts to media that he neither made, nor owned, nor invested in, nor had a legal right (as dubious as those may be) to distribute? I get that you can't stop people from sharing, but anyone can see the negative repercussions of people making millions of dollars off of the transaction, when he is neither the sharer, the viewer, nor the author. He's a middleman and this money was ill-gotten; he's happy to play the victim to you guys but it's not about your right to copy, not remotely. It's about his right to make money off copying.
Yeah this has to be stopped. Not be prosecuting and harassing Kim Dotcom (which would do nothing other than turn him into a hero), but by providing legal means of getting media when needed. This is about MAFIAA getting its revenge, not about justice, or about preventing file sharing.
It's really no different than someone pulling code from the Linux kernel and using it in a closed-source commercial product: the author has rights, and the distributor violated those rights because it was profitable.
How often does that happen? And does the linux community use a scorch earth policy to prevent linux code from being used elsewhere? I doubt that.
(And yes I know Megaupload had legitimate uses, if you think that's why it managed to cleared over $100 million in ad and subscription fees in its lifetime from legitimate, author-sourced file distro, you're hopelessly naive.)
Er, he made money from legitimate filesharing. There is a difference if you think about it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Read the indictment. The gov't claims to have evidence that he did in fact know about infringing works and actively worked to keep these works available. Thatis against the law -- even the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what is claimed is that he did not take down files that have the hashcheck as the reported file. The reported file was taken down, or else the shitstorm would have started much earlier. The govt also has some some evidence of emails where the employees mentioned some specific file and movie names in the email, and the govt claims the employees knew that this violated copyright. I seriously doubt they can prove this claim, as the employees couldnt have known if the uploader really did get the permission
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry for the self response. But I wish I could take that post back. It seems there is a lot more references in the emails to copyrighted content. I still am not convinced it is sufficient to convict them, but they really are as stupid as some posts make them to be.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a film buff. I easily watch 3 movies a week (if I have good company it can be more). I have a Neflix account and a hulu+ account, apart from premium cable. Guess what? I still have to resort to not so legal means to get content. Netflix and hulu online collection suck. I am not even taking about new releases (which I would gladly watch at a movie theater), but movies that were released 20-30 years ago. I sometimes look it up at the local library, sometimes queue it up on Netflix-dvd, and about 60% of the time download the damn thing, get some beer from the fridge and start watching the movie. And my film buff friends abroad, easily get 90% of their content from not so legal means.
Just open it up, already, I would gladly pay for content. But I guess MAFIAA, does not want my money.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is stupid.
Simply because it assumes you can get something elsewhere. Point is: you can't, just because MAFIAA doesn't want you to. Why isn't there a service where you can get just everything? Why does it have to be so complicated, "licensing", "distribution rights", and a lot of other BULLSHIT, like "region coding" on DVDs. Why do I, down here in Argentina, have to wait several months for a DVD release, while someone in the US got it long before? What's the point? Money talks, and the price of the DVD here is pretty much the same down here than over there. So the "people will order from other countries to pay less" argument doesn't apply either.
Here's the thing: I want to watch that movie now. I know it's out in the US. I have the money. Where's my movie? "You have to wait". Fuck that shit, I'll get it elsewhere.
Really, you are just playing Hollywood's game, and in that game, you'll always be their bitch.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal means for getting media when needed? Like iTunes...
Has only a limited range of choice in New Zealand.
Netflix
Not available in New Zealand.
Hulu
Not available in New Zealand.
AmazonMp3
Not available in New Zealand.
Amazon
Will not ship DVDs or CDs to New Zealand.
paid Pandora
Not available in New Zealand.
and any other of a plethora of easy to use and economical means of legally "getting media"?
Tell me more about this 'plethora' of legally accessible media in New Zealand. Sounds like Kim Dotcom was providing a service where there is demand, but no supply.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kim Dotcom simply provided a service that could be used both "legally" and "illegally" and being a good provider of a service made money. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, the people suing him (US department of "justice") obtained their vast wealth through theft of property, and fraud.
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Informative)
I used it for legal files. Several people I know did the same. I'm pretty sure my small group of people weren't the only ones either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So basically, this guy bought a $24 million house by selling ad space and premium accounts to media that he neither made, nor owned, nor invested in, nor had a legal right (as dubious as those may be) to distribute?
And yet we're more willing to support him than the companies currently "creating" said media What does that say about them?
Re: (Score:3)
He's a middleman and this money was ill-gotten
My gut feeling is the same as yours... but PROVE that is what he did.
For myself, I have NEVER used his services or any similar services for copyright infringement. How did people find the copyrighted material there? All the URLs that I saw were encoded and showed no interesting information. No megaupload results were ever returned in ANY of my searches... at least not on any the pages of results that I viewed.
So seriously, is this man to be convicted on gut feelings? Where is the justice in that? Let's see
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Huh?
I missed the part where Kim Dotcom was uploading his own personal BluRay rips to MU.
I *remember* the part where his users did.
I don't give a shit how he made his money or whether or not you consider it "ill-gotten" simply because MU hosted some copyrighted material uploaded by users. It's an absurd contortion of logic and reason to say that he deserves none of his money because some of his users misbehaved.
$100m is the equivalent of one mid-tier movie budget. If you think Hollywood actually felt that
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Read the indictment. It claims he did know and that his emails prove he know and that he actively worked to make copyrighted works available.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, let's see some of the damning evidence (fromArstechnica
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
It claims.
He hasn't had a chance to defend himself. He can't defend himself, because they confiscated the money he needs to pay his lawyers to defend him.
There are lots of cases where prosecutors claimed someone was guilty, and he turned out to be innocent. In fact, there are lots of cases in which prosecutors (illegally) withheld evidence that would have proved the defendant was guilty.
Re: (Score:3)
Because AT&T and Comcast actually pay money to companies when they host their copyrighted content. The cable companies and the content companies have a licensing arrangement. Megaupload has no such agreement and, according to the indictment, its employees actively worked to make copyrighted works freely available to people knowing full well they neither uploaded the file themself and knowing full well that the content creators did not want the content up there. You need to inform yourself about the c
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you missed my point. AT&T and Comcast pay appropriate fees to content providers when they host files for consumer download. These other companies that host the copyrighted material do not. When some guy owns a warehouse that is selling stolen goods, you don't arrest the person who built the road. Likewise, if I own a storage warehouse, you don't arrest me when my customer with locker number #12345 has stolen goods in his locker.
The megaupload case hinges on the incriminating private correspondence of megaupload employees scheming to make copyrighted works available. Read the indictment.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you missed my point. AT&T and Comcast pay appropriate fees to content providers when they host files for consumer download.
So, you mean someone who hosts files is responsible for their legality, but not someone who transfers them?
I fail to see the relevant difference. In both cases, you're facilitating piracy. Very few people need a 100 Mbit/s connection if they're not going to use it for pirating.
And the "incriminating private correspondence" is very vague and circumstantial. It basically shows that MegaUpload staff were aware of individual infringing users, but still rewarded them for the uploads which were legal (as far as t
Re: (Score:2)
Actively prevent, no.. but the allegations seem to be that he outright encouraged ..
Whether thats true is not something I can even make a guess at. If it is true than I agree a wrong has been done. How that wrong is defined legally (or whether it is) is again, way over my head..
Re:This case is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
MegaUpload had a scheme where they paid more to uploaders the more their content was downloaded. They didn't make any distinction between legal or illegal material; they just choose not to check.
The DOJ got hold of an internal memo which showed they were aware of some individual uploaders that uploaded illegal material. And that's about it. The rest of the case is highly circumstantial, such as: MegaUpload has "facilitated" piracy by *not* providing a search feature on their site (which is an insane allegat
What is this talk of 'case'? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This isn't good versus evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This isn't good versus evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Pointless from the FBI/Cartel POV (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, not only does the RIAA/MPAA have the ability to extend their influence overseas via the US Federal Government, so does the DEA: Stoned money in other countries is *definitely* under its jurisdiction, obviously it became stoned via illegal drugs!
Irreverently yours,
dj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After 9/11 it was all over the media when the US Government extended its reach concerning financial institutions. They were freezing accounts "suspected" of being tied to terrorism all over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
when the big boys come at you with everything they have... with all their rules and procedures they insist you follow... You loose if you play the game their way. Change the game and you have a chance of winning. But I agree with your sentiments re: getting worked up over Kim. Don't care or know him well enough to call him a douche though.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Don't care or know him well enough to call him a douche though.
People who come up with a simple idea and make millions/billions off it are often "hated". Whether it's Facebook, or buying DOS from IBM and selling it back to them at a profit, or hosting a sharing site, if you make it big with an easy thing that anyone could do, they'll hate you because you did it and not them. He's apparently not a douche in person, though he understands the rules and chooses to break them, which pisses off many, to no end.
Re:More like Kim Dot-Scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More like Kim Dot-Scum (Score:5, Interesting)
Who said anything about admiring him? Even if your assessment is true, he's still entitled to due process under US law, by definition, from "Yick Wo v. Hopkins", 1886, as quoted in
http://open.salon.com/blog/scottstarr/2010/03/20/despite_recent_demagoguery_non-citizens_also_have_constitut
Most relevant part quoted here:
The truth of the matter is, this is actually the best approach he could take, and one that he SHOULD take. By US law, his assets MUST be unfrozen at this point, because he has yet to be found guilty of any crime by due process of US law.
The real question is: Will the US Federal Government actually OBEY their own laws as interpreted by SCOTUS?
Somehow, I doubt it. There's too much money at stake, potentially, and there's no way that our Facist Overlords in the US are ever going to permit this: Crippling him by freezing his accounts worldwide, regardless of due process, gives them leverage, and there's NO way that they'll give up that advantage without a huge fight.
Look for the US Federal Government to try to turn this into a RICO case, to keep his assets frozen, by arguing that this is a case of "organized crime", in response to this.
You heard it here first.
Cynically,
dj br