Kim Dotcom Faces Jail At Bail Hearing 166
An anonymous reader writes A bail hearing will resume on Monday at which New Zealand authorities will claim one-time internet tycoon Kim Dotcom is a flight risk and should be sent to jail to await his extradition hearing. The Crown quizzed Dotcom on his finances, contacts and even his online gaming habits this week. Authorities argued he had breached bail conditions by trying to sell a Rolls Royce and having contact with former Megaupload colleagues. Dotcom is wanted in the US on criminal copyright violation and racketeering charges.
authorities? (Score:3, Insightful)
the same authorities who are on hook for damages if doesn't get sent to USA? and probably on misconduct shit even if he does get sent.
where would he take a flight to anyways? bahamas?
and wtf - why should he be isolated from former megaupload workers, seems like a proper defense wouldn't be possible without coordinating with them somewhat.
Re: (Score:1)
obviously, they are unindicted co-conspirators.
Re: (Score:3)
It's much worse. If the NZ authorities fail to turn over Kim DC, the filming of the next Tolkien epic won't be allowed there.
Re: (Score:2)
NZ, please flip the United States the Bird!
Re: (Score:2)
Laydeeeeeeez and Gentlemen, please direct your attention to the center ring, where you will see an amazing feat of avian dexterity and balance; All the way from New Zealand; The Flipping Kiwis!
Re: (Score:2)
next up: jokes about flaming Tasmanians and CM Burns' "WTF" facepalm at the camera...
Re: (Score:2)
To late the woolly jumbuck of New Zealand politics has already rudely had it's hind legs dropped into the front of the US government's gumboots and is now if for the ride of it's life, even as New Zealanders crow about the advantages of the Russia trade sanctions against Australia as a result of the current Australia government being a blatant puppet of the US government. Ahh yes, the US government the friend you have when you want to be democratised to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think those kind of restrictions are common in conspiracy cases. This all sounds like standard procedure except for the "popular among nerds" and "rich guy" angles.
Not a fan but come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You've never been to Alabama, apparently.
Moral of the story is... (Score:1)
Don't mess with Murica'. We like our free money.
Re:Moral of the story is... (Score:5, Informative)
No... He works for Bank of America...
which brings this back on topic...
Here you have someone whose offense had zero effect on the economy yet those who brought the world to its knees got billions and never even saw the insde of a court room much less a jail.
Re: (Score:2)
yet those who brought the world to its knees got billions and never even saw the insde of a court room much less a jail.
True, but one wrong doesn't make another one right. And I personally wouldn't want to live in a world with a "we don't prosecute robbery as long as there are murders" policy.
Re: (Score:2)
HDBC is a poor example, they were founded to handle funds generated off the opium trade, in fact their biggest cashflow portion is still the illicit drugs trade in China and the Far East.
Re: (Score:2)
HSBC even.
Re:Moral of the story is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have always said fining a corporation does no good since it simply becomes a "cost of doing business" usually with their customers footing the fine.
Want to really punish a corporation? Revoke or suspend their corporate charter. Remove the protections they, and more importantly, their shareholder's enjoy. Let them feel the pain when a company does something illegal. They want to be thought of as a person, then let's treat them as a person and remove the entitlements they receive by being corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
In a competitive market, the corporation can't pass extra costs on to the customer, because they'd be pricing themselves out of the market. Even in a monopoly, there's a certain price (determined by the demand curve) that gives the monopolist maximum revenue, although it's higher than the price in a competitive market. If the corporation can make more money by raising prices or lowering costs, to make a reserve for fines, they're currently leaving money on the table.
Unless the fines are incurred per cu
Bail terms - no more money making (Score:5, Insightful)
He can't sell a car? He can't talk to people to help him get money? His bail terms must be to sit and do nothing until they get him in jail permanently. He's screwed, and it shows the law means nothing if they have a grudge against you.
Re:Bail terms - no more money making (Score:5, Informative)
The car was part of the assets under seizure, so no he can't sell it. compared to what most people go through in such a criminal trial where the assets may be considered illicit gains he has actually been treated unbelievably well. He was able to keep his money to spend on his legal bills as well as a political campaign, gambling and even a ridiculous music venture and a monthly rent bill that was $80,000. seriously that is nearly a million a year he was spending on rent.
Re:Bail terms - no more money making (Score:5, Insightful)
The car was part of the assets under seizure,
Seizure again without due process on the theory that he is a "fugitive from justice in the United States". Being a fugitive is somewhat of a stretch considering that he is a German citizen and has never been in the United States to start with. So they are are seizing and freezing all his assets because he is a "fugitive" from the U.S., and the U.S. justice system is wired in a way that you only get to see justice (or the closest approximation to it you will see there) if you can fork over lots of cash for your defense.
Don't take me wrong: I consider Kim DotCom a douchebag, but compared to the douchebagginess of the U.S. prosecution and its New Zealand lapdogs as shown here he is a cute little puppy.
Re:Bail terms - no more money making (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, it's amazingly hard to pick sides in this battle. Is there any way that we could make both of them lose?
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, both teams of lawyers will work to ensure that justice is done. Justice to their various bank accounts, that is.
Re:Bail terms - no more money making (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how much of a douche he is, being a douche isn't a criminal offence or worthy of being locked up and deprived of your assets because America says so.
Defending freedom often means defending scoundrels, but it's a price worth paying.
Re: (Score:2)
There is the rare moment when the legal system has been bullshitted by an individual long and often enough that I can only say that turnabout is fair game. Just like when Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion (let's be honest, that was the crime he was convicted of but not the reason why he was convicted). Some individuals are very adept at evading the legal system, and while the legal system gets abused far too often, sometimes it gets really hard to consider it wrong. Was it wrong to jail Capone, albeit on
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think Capone was imprisoned on a constructed reason? He did not declare all of his income on his tax returns, and the authorities were able to prove this, and demonstrate that he did that with intent to defraud. Since he was a well-known crime kingpin, if his tax returns indicated low income he was a natural target for auditing and investigation.
The lesson here is that, if you're going to commit profitable crime, declare enough of it on you income taxes that they won't be able to prove you d
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not clear on his alleged crimes. He is accused of commercial copyright infringement right? If so then being a douche is irrelevant; he's simply an accused criminal living in a country with an extradition treaty to the country who wants to prosecute him. He is deprived of his assets not because America says so but because New Zealand says so in the form of their treaty with America.
Re: (Score:2)
douchebag or not, he is still entitled to due process. Is he really that much more of a scumbag than the guards at Auschwitz that he doesn't deserve a fair trial that they got? What, actually, is he accused of that's so heinous, so wrong, that the Great United States Justice Machine wants him locked up in one of their holes forever throw away the key fuck your trial fuck due process? Dotcom is due an apology, not a fucking court date.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup a "fugitive" as in fighting extradition. Those pesky assets might let him mount a functional defense.
I'm sorry but seizing somebody assets so he can no longer mount a defense is entirely contrary to fair or just.
Because another country will not extradite does not make him a fugitive. Nations have these sovereign rights for a reason so that we do not have some world law, so that they may pick what is right and wrong and to what extent internally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Citizenship is irrelevant to the question of whether he broke US laws. Like every other country, US laws apply to actions and jurisdiction, not to citizenship. The important question is whether he acted in a way that broke US criminal copyright laws. The FBI has convinced the NZ government that they have a substantial case so they executed arrest and search warrants against him and he has strangely been able to drag out extradition procedures against him for more than two years.
Re:Bail terms - no more money making (Score:5, Insightful)
You have almost certainly broken sharia law of many nations, how would you feel about defending your self there. Should you be extradited? Should your assets be frozen so that you have no chance of financing a reasonable defence?
Re: (Score:2)
I was discussing the way laws actually work. What are YOU talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
I was discussing the way laws actually work. What are YOU talking about?
Why are you being so hostile? Fitter's point stands. Merely existing as a non-Muslim in accordance with the harshest varieties of Sharia law, which takes the stance that all of God's creation is their jurisdiction, you could be charged with crimes punishable by beheading (among worse things) merely on the suspicion of guilt.
Would you find your assets being seized and extradited to defend yourself against such criminal accusations an acceptable outcome? You broke their law in their jurisdiction, therefore th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of seizure or more precisely freezing his assets in this case is to prevent him disposing of them BEFORE due process has taken place, otherwise there is noting stopping him selling everything and funneling into offshore account or flushing it on blow and hookers.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have a misunderstanding of due process. Dotcom has been charged with a crime (what he's accused of is criminal both in the US and New Zealand), and this is part of the legal process. AFAICT, his property is being restricted, not disposed of, and he will have free use of it if acquitted. (Were this part of the odious civil asset forfeiture that is popular in the US, I'd agree with you.)
Due process doesn't mean absolutely nothing bad happens to him unless and until he is convicted. It means
Re: (Score:2)
The car was part of the assets under seizure, so no he can't sell it. compared to what most people go through in such a criminal trial where the assets may be considered illicit gains he has actually been treated unbelievably well. He was able to keep his money to spend on his legal bills as well as a political campaign, gambling and even a ridiculous music venture and a monthly rent bill that was $80,000. seriously that is nearly a million a year he was spending on rent.
I thought Kim Dotcom was broke and not even able to pay his lawyers? http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30209067 [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A former Brazilian Politician (of the 50s IIRC), once said:
"For friends, everything; for enemies, the Law."
The Law is a good instrument to promote all kinds of injustice. Can't really say anything else, because the present case proves there's no Freedom of Expression. Not in the US and neither overseas. I hope I can still say that...
Re: (Score:2)
Accurate. Most people are too stupid to see it though.
Re:Bail terms - no more money making (Score:5, Interesting)
The story at Ars has a video of an candid interview Kim Dotcom did with the press a couple of days ago... http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
I listened to the whole thing, and found it very interesting. Kim Dotcom gave fairly straight forward responses, and came off for me as an intelligent, not so bad guy. For sure it would be easy for us to envy his wealth, but IMHO he came about it by exploiting loopholes in the law, not by breaking the law.
Instead of pursuing Kim Dotcom to the ends of the earth (Sorry, NZers), why doesn't the US DOJ expend their effort prosecuting the crooks on Wall Street whole defrauded the whole world of a trillion dollars selling those bogus Credit Default Swaps that led up to the crash of 2008? Not one has been prosecuted, nor will they ever be.
Re: (Score:2)
Trickle down. (Score:2)
why doesn't the US DOJ expend their effort prosecuting the crooks on Wall Street whole defrauded the whole world of a trillion dollars selling those bogus Credit Default Swaps that led up to the crash of 2008?
Because immoral and illegal are two different things. CDS were not illegal in 2008, and are still not illegal now. That banks suddenly stopped trusting each other in 2008 was not Wall Street's fault, it was a failure of government and ultimately a failure of the people who elected them on the mantra of deregulation.
Re: (Score:2)
"The law" generally means nothing. It is just a fiction propped up by propaganda to somehow have a connection to right and wrong, but it does not. IT also has zero effect of preventing or reducing crime, that is the other Big Lie. People do respect others because they want to, not because some law tells them to. If you do not believe that, just think about the countless possibility to do utter evil, yet not break the law at all or be shielded from the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)
The evidence for extradition is tainted because it was obtained by illegal surveillance by the NZ spy agency against a New Zealand resident, they also promptly handed the evidence over the US without court approval, so its all very dodgy legally at this point. Even before we consider if conspiracy to commit a copyright infringement is an actual legal thing, let alone an extraditable legal thing.
So they're trying for a shit throwing exercise to see if they can throw enough shit and see if any of it can stick.
Re: Keep in mind (Score:1)
It will stick. Might makes right, and money is might. Kim Dotcom should rename himself Kim Deadman.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't worry. We're about to fix the law to get rid of pesky "illegal surveillance" problems with the new bill currently before parliament. 48 hours of surveillance without a warrant. I wonder how many times the 48 hour period will begin just in the nick of time to catch something that would have previously been illegal surveilance? There will no longer be a disincentive to carry out illegal surveillance because everything will be admissible within the right 48 hour window.
Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. (Score:5, Insightful)
You (insert your name here) are hereby accused of (unstated) crime. It doesn't matter what, but it was serious enough to threaten (insert multinational corporation here) profits.
Your plea is irrelevant. Your evidence is irrelevant. Your refutation of our evidence is irrelevant. Precedent is irrelevant.
Go directly to jail. Forfeit all assets. And get your mind right.
He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt (Score:2, Interesting)
You may notice he's not in jail. You may also notice all the evidence, including emails he wrote, is pretty much 100% showing he's guilty. Heck, he even had a personalized license plate made - GUILTY. He's bragging about it. The one and only difference between him and any other criminal caught on tape is that he "gave" you free shit (that wasn't his to give).
Re: (Score:1)
What e-mails? Those who were illegally confiscated by the U.S.? The same e-mails he claims were torn totally out of context? The same e-mails they're now denying him access to, because of... reasons?
Being a scumbag and driving around in expensive cars with profane license plates doesn't make one a criminal. Up until now, the U.S. government and their kiwi henchmen look a whole lot more criminal than the guy they're trying to convict. More than two and a half years have passed since they shut this whole Mega
Re: (Score:2)
this is just the bail prior the extradition hearing, they're not near to the copyright trial yet.
Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, the confiscated emails where he explicitly says they need to get more Hollywood movofies in order to make more money. That THE textbook example of criminal copyright infringement. Whether the seizure was the legal the courts will decide. We've seen the the emails, so we know that he intentionally committed another crime. Apparently you feel that you've benefited from this type of crime, so just be honest and say that. To pretend he didn't do the things he brags about doing is silly.
> More than two and a half years have passed since they shut this whole Megaupload down and did this big Hollywoodesque showoff at his mansion. Where is the due process in this?
I'm not quite following your complaint here. You are bothered that his team of lawyers has been given every opportunity to delay the hearing, over and over? You feel that due process requires that his motions for continuance and various prehearing motions be denied?
Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt (Score:5, Informative)
Whether the seizure was the legal the courts will decide.
NZ courts have already decided that the seizure was illegal.
Oh wait, you mean the US of A courts, the ones who claim to have legal authority over a German living in New Zealand whose company was registered in Hong Kong?
Re: (Score:3)
[...] over a German living in New Zealand whose company was registered in Hong Kong?
Who is not living in both Germany and Hong Kong anymore because of previous conflicts with the law, including being convicted of crimes?
Why is it so difficult for most /. readers to understand that there can be two assholes in a fight, and rooting for one of them just because you personally dislike the other isn't the answer?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not so difficult to understand that both of the players in this game are fuckers. You don't need to pick one or the other. "much bigger deal" doesn't make much sense unless you are distributing limited resources. When you're the police dispatcher and you have exactly one car available and one person phones in a murder and the other his neighbours being loud, the question makes sense to decide where to send it (first). But "not being ok with something" is not a limited resource. You don't have to focus
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so your argument is that the resources used to prosecute Kimble could be used elsewhere?
So what you're saying is that we should let known criminals go free because children in Africa are starving?
Re: (Score:2)
You may notice he's not in jail. You may also notice all the evidence, including emails he wrote, is pretty much 100% showing he's guilty. Heck, he even had a personalized license plate made - GUILTY. He's bragging about it. The one and only difference between him and any other criminal caught on tape is that he "gave" you free shit (that wasn't his to give).
Do you realize that not a single thing that you wrote has any connection to reality?
Of course you do. That's why you write it.
He's in jail? No 20 year criminal career? (Score:2)
Are you under the impression that he IS in jail?
That his custom license plate isn't GUILTY?
Certainly that history of dozens of charges and multiple convictions in three different countries never happened?
Seriously, I bet I know what you take issue with - you like getting free stuff. That's cool. You could have the intellectual honesty to admit that to yourself. He did it, he admits he's guilty, and your glad he did it because you got a ripped copy of The Fast and Furious 6 out of it. That's called being
Re: (Score:1)
The real issue here is the raid in the first place. The raiders should be on trial.
Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt (Score:4, Interesting)
And if he was giving away all his ill gotten gains then I would support him instead of condemning him for the scumbag he is. At the moment he is little more than a Robber Baron, robbing from the rich to make himself richer.
Re: (Score:2)
And what of the ruling National Party, then?
The same party who, when sued for using an Eminem song without permission settled with the publishers rather than having their own houses raided, being held at gunpoint and having all their assets seized?
Seems rather hypocritical, to me. But then, they are the big money, changing the nation's laws to suit American interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas, on Earth, pleas, evidence, and precedent are relevant.
There is strong reason to believe Dotcom committed acts in the US that are crimes both in the US and in New Zealand. So far, he is limited in what he can do with his property (this is not forfeiture), and there's a proposal to imprison him until this hearing is over. Dotcom has an opportunity to argue that the imprisonment is unnecessary, and last I heard he was in fact not jailed.
The New Zealand authorities committed some acts in regard
Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. (Score:5, Insightful)
How nice to have a verdict without a trial. 'Presumption of innocence' is a legal fiction created to counteract the thuggery of the police. Once someone says that fiction doesn't count, the accused cannot win. Because the police no longer have to prove they're correct.
So the cops are allowed to be criminals too? Approving police thuggery never helps.
Then the police can find evidence the old-fashioned way.
Re: (Score:2)
presumption of innoccence is a maxim that has existed for over twelve hundred years, predating the police by CENTURIES.
Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody should be above or below the law, even scumbags. He doesn't belong in a jail cell until they charge him with something that could put you or me in a jail cell.
Re: (Score:2)
in all fairness - bollocks. It doesn't matter how much of a cunt you are, or what you're accused of, when someone makes a claim against you the burden is upon them to prove their case, not on you to prove a negative. This is the entire basis of Western justice: innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. I could drive around with an image of a machine gun on my number plate, does that mean I'm off to shoot up a school? Fuck no, it means I know a little about guns. But in YOUR mind, I'm a crazed psychopath who should be i
Re: (Score:2)
He's guilty of absolutely nothing, and he's actually fairly nice guy. But none of this will help him ...
No Cash Left (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not htink it is a coincidence that he is low on cash and now seems to be at risk of going to jail.
No money=Guilty.
Lots of money=Not Guilty, or at least it was till this point at question whether he was or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Functionally no money=guilty but not in principle.
The problem is that the system is so stacked against a person, that without money you will have an extremely difficult time defending yourself. In modern times, the justice system has been changed to the "just us" system. This is likely even more true in other countries that do not have the supposed safeguards like the USA claims to have.
But this is not a hearing to determine if he is guilty or innocent, just if he broke the terms of his bail. You could atta
Re: (Score:3)
The guy has got buckets of money. He just managed to spend $4.5M on a splashy political campaign in NZ. In a country of 4 million people that's a very expensive campaign.
He's been spending mountains of money on lawyers to delay and delay his extradition hearings. Anyone without his resources would have been deported by now, not living in a mansion on bail.
Re: (Score:2)
He just managed to spend $4.5M on a splashy political campaign in NZ. In a country of 4 million people that's a very expensive campaign.
That's barely over $1/person. Compare that the the $1 billion for Obama's campaign and $1 billion for Romney's campaign [politico.com] (and $7 billion total election expenses in 2012), and it makes KDC look like a cheap piker.
Re: (Score:3)
Did he really spend his last millions on the political campaign, and not save any for legal costs? That seems unlikely / not very smart.
Re: (Score:2)
You were trying for +5 funny there, right?
Deportation next? (Score:2)
I thought that the recent revelation that his original NZ residency application failed to disclose a dangerous driving conviction left it open for him to be deported?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11350895
So the whole "illegal" raid, dodgy handling of his arrest and application for his extradition could be a moot point now.
He's seriously pissed off the NZ power's that be after the Internet-Mana, mud slinging, campaign in the recent election.
That and putting John Key's mate
Passport should be enough (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
But he's a pirate, wouldn't he just steal a boat and sail off into the sunset?
Re: (Score:1)
People smugglers only exist when being used to threaten the population with how evil foreigners are, and how we need to tighten the laws before we can catch them.
That's fuckin' great (Score:1)
'Criminal copyright violation'
They will use nuclear weapons to enforce copyright.. The thought is just so cool...
Now we will find out (Score:1)
if the corrupt, criminal U.S gov has its slimy tentacles deep in the NZ gov or not.
Re: (Score:3)
It has. Depend on it. There will be enough immoral scum in the NZ government that they can buy and coerce quite a few people. Politicians are routinely the worst the human race has to offer, with very few exception that may qualify as people of average decency. The real question is whether they will use it for this purpose.
Mega must be successful (Score:2)
I thought he was broke? (Score:2)
What's he going to do, swim to Tasmania?
A flight risk? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Kimble Special Agent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Mega Car
http://www.he.edu.cn/learn/fla... [he.edu.cn]
Re: (Score:3)
Dang it, I moderated this as 'Funny' but it still shows as "Informative" which it really isn't.
Now I have to write this comment just to role back the moderation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only piece of shit here is you.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new around here. Where did you get that low uid from?
Re: (Score:2)
No worries anonymous coward. If he has already been found guilty in the court of wikipedia why wait on the earthly jurisprudence.
All good.
Re: why why WHY? (Score:1)
You may want to get your sarcasm detector looked at, it appears to be offline.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are hiding, wouldn't Brazil be a lot more hip place to be? 20,000 Nazis can't be wrong!.
Of course the preferred place of immigration for these bastards was the good old USA, where thousands went [npr.org]. And where, if you were discovered, you just had to move abroad meanwhile receiving all you social security payments [rt.com].
And so misinformed (Score:3)
Well in New Zealand and everywhere else. copyright infringement is a civil offense,
Will somebody please tell the ignoramuses at ZDnet that there's no such thing as a "criminal copyright violation"?
Re: (Score:2)
17 U.S. Code 506 begs to differ.
"(a) Criminal Infringement.—
(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value o
It has to be a crime in NZ, too (Score:2)
Countries will extradite their citizens if they've been charged with a crime, but it has to be a crime in both countries, and it needs to be of some severity. Parking tickets aren't enough to get me extradited from Canada, even though not paying them is a misdemanor. Similarly, charging me with blasphemy in Iran and asking for me to extradited won't work either.
NZ needs to have made copyright infringement an indictable offence, and they need to have done so before Mr Dotcom was charged.
If not, and if t
Re: (Score:2)
it already is: Copyright Act 1994 #143 section 131. http://www.legislation.govt.nz... [legislation.govt.nz]
"Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects
(1)Every person commits an offence against this section who, other than pursuant to a copyright licence,—
(a)makes for sale or hire; or
(b)imports into New Zealand otherwise than for that person's private and domestic use; or
(c)possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright; or
(d)in the course of a business
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the first line of the section (the header, even) should provide some clue here: "Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects".
Second clue should be clear in paragraph 7, which moves the burden of proof from that of presumption (hence balance of probabilities - where a finding of guilt is based on the finding of fact, not intent) to a burden of evidence (hence to intent: in the present case, did the offender gain by violation?). The fact that I have a hard drive full of music ripped from
Re: (Score:2)
Argggghhhh, people that do not know German should be shot for mangling it!