Kim Dotcom Sues New Zealand For $6.8 Billion In Damages Over Erroneous Arrest (torrentfreak.com) 216
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Kim Dotcom, the founder of file-sharing site Megaupload, is suing the New Zealand government for billions of dollars in damages over his arrest in 2012. The internet entrepreneur is fighting extradition to the U.S. to stand trial for copyright infringement and fraud. Mr Dotcom says an invalid arrest warrant negated all charges against him. He is seeking damages for destruction to his business and loss of reputation. Accountants calculate that the Megaupload group of companies would be worth $10 billion today, had it not been shut down during the raid. As he was a 68% shareholder in the business, Mr Dotcom has asked for damages going up to $6.8 billion. He is also considering taking similar action against the Hong Kong government. As stated in documents filed with the High Court, Mr Dotcom is also seeking damages for: all lost business opportunities since 2012, his legal costs, loss of investments he made to the mansion he was renting, his lost opportunity to purchase the mansion, and loss of reputation.
Bring it on big guy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah the Police didn't have a valid warrant, spied on him illegally and chucked his MittleEurope ass in pokey.
That's all fine 'cos they were doing the bidding of The Mouse and our Govt was only too keen to dry hump the US Govt's leg.
Got one of our previous Prime Minister's a number of golf games with ex-Pres. Obama though.
However I think his chance of getting through or not being deported are slim. Although he has seen off 2 PMs thus far maybe he will see off a third?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He pissed off the wrong people. He is learning that justice is a farce. It doesn't matter how right he is, he will receive none, and will only delay the roasting they have every intention of giving him.
This is how power actually works in the real world. You get pretensions of justice if you basically follow the rules and don't piss off any of the people who actually matter.
Apart from that, you are cattle, and will be treated as such.
Re: (Score:3)
He's hiring good lawyers and fighting the good fight. He might set some precedents that will be useful later.
He's just lucky in that he was already successful before they came after him so he can do a reasonable job on his defense. Most piracy cases are targetting people who can't afford to defend themselves so their defense is weak and the precedents set are scary and horrible.
I don't think Kim really cares about the money he'd get f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The high court is New Zealand is hugely different to the corrupt US top court where all sorts of paid for fanciful interpretations are allowed. The high priest of law system is in place ie the judges are scrupulous on the letter of the law interpretation, not happy rewrite the law, don't try to get us to corruptly interpret it like the US. So it would not have lasted any where near this long, if the New Zealand government was not fucked and knew it and was extending it out to forgotten history and a reasona
Re:Bring it on big guy. (Score:4, Informative)
Its the difference an english style justice system makes. One of the fatal mistakes the US has made with its justitce system is the way it appoints judges has become utterly politicized, to the point where , somewhat bafflingly, in some states they actually vote for them, which has led to mindboggling corruption in so many cases.. There should be no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" judge, its an absurdity.
More to the point, where theres electoral politics , even in the case of indirect electoral politics (Ie appointment of judges by elected officials) theres always the chance of corruption where interests can say "Give us this judge who we know always votes against consumers in copyright cases, and we'll throw another million into the electoral fund"
The way the rest of the world does it, the court apoints new judges as the need emerges, with the government simply approving the choices. If the govt intervenes it better have a damn good reason, or theres trouble.
Here in australia we had one case recently where the previous conservative government in Queensland (Its kind of like our Arizona, meth lab of democracy), put some crazy asshole with almost no qualification into the supreme court, throwing a huge protest up from the supreme court itself because it was unconscionable interference with the courts by a government that repeatedly kept violating the constitution and federal laws and thus had come into pretty serious conflict with the court. Fortunately the dodgy appointment soon realised he was way out of his depth and quit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
lol. great! let him get paid so he'll be forced to pay it all to microsoft, etc, when they sue him for damages for piracy that WE ALL KNOW he helped commit.
Are you forgetting that he didn't violate the laws in his own country, or do you just not care?
Re: Bring it on big guy. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have the wrong folk hero. Kim Dotcom ran a competitor to dropbox, not thepiratebay.
Re:Bring it on big guy. (Score:5, Interesting)
However the NZ Govt did illegally clone a whole bunch of servers etc. and send them to the US.
Whilst -as has been correctly pointed out- breached no New Zealand laws and the Fat German (who at the tome was a NZ resident and now citizen BTW) had never been to the US.
To be fair this is not really an Obama thing but more a Joe Biden thing. Apparently he is the one in the pocket of Big Media but Obama still gave the go-ahead and played golf with his mate John Key.
Interesting that the right-wing party in NZ -National- has so much in common with the Democrats, putatively the US 'left'.
Our main 'left' party (Labour) is the one that ate all the free trade bullshot of Thatcher and Reagan back in the late '80s.
Can't but (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't but wish him the best and hope he succeed. Not because of whom he is but to make sure government knows if it oversteps it's boundaries and relinquishes sovereignty to USA it would come with a high price. Hope they also jail every national traitor involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Being translated, this means he's still as big a media whore as ever: much like certain other people I could mention, there is absolutely nothing he will not say or claim if he thinks there's a few headlines in it.
That doesn't mean he's wrong, and it isn't relevant to whether the NZ authorities illegally caused him $6.8bn of losses.
The man still owes money to hundreds of New Zealand tradespeople who've been gullible enough to do various jobs of work for him.
It's pretty fucking hard to pay people when your financial assets have been stolen from you.
I can easily believe this guy is a total cock but that's the thing with justice: It applies to everybody.
Good luck to him (Score:1)
They should cough up. They destroyed him at the US government's whims. Now it's time to pay the piper.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could make a case for the responsible officials having their assets liquidated to help pay the bill. Also demand the U.S. pay a portion as a co-conspirator. But ethically, the money IS due. Law enforcement illegally destroying a multi-billion dollar business just because some foreign government said "jump" is pretty harsh as well.
Don't worry, the bills will keep on coming. Plenty of people lost data, money, and opportunities as a result of this illegal action.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could make a case for the responsible officials having their assets liquidated to help pay the bill. Also demand the U.S. pay a portion as a co-conspirator. But ethically, the money IS due. Law enforcement illegally destroying a multi-billion dollar business just because some foreign government said "jump" is pretty harsh as well.
Don't worry, the bills will keep on coming. Plenty of people lost data, money, and opportunities as a result of this illegal action.
Agreed. I never understood how govt officials seem to do whatever they want, but when caught the taxpayers are held responsible and the officials don't serve a day in jail or pay a dollar towards the lawsuit. How does that make sense?
Re: (Score:2)
We already did evaluate them and voted them out already.
Sure, wy not? (Score:2)
They could award him 6.8 billion in Zimbabwe Dollars, pay him with a Trillion ZWD note, and tell him to keep the change. I'm sure Mr Dotcom would appreciate the irony.
Sovereign immunity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't there an equivalent of sovereign immunity in New Zealand? If I understand correctly, the sovereign immunity doctrine at least in the US would bar such a suit against the government. Sovereign immunity is the concept that a sovereign cannot be sued for damages except in cases where it has waived the immunity (for example, by having a law stating that it is responsible for damages in certain types of cases, usually with an upper limit).
I presume no sane government would make a law that subjects the country to that large liabilities. Many countries have laws that provide for some kind of restitution from the state in the case of wrongful imprisonment, but it's hard to imagine an unlimited liability.
If the officers of the state did wrong, it may be possible to sue them for damages (also in the US), but good luck collecting billions of dollars from them...
Re:Sovereign immunity? (Score:4, Informative)
People sue, and win against, the federal government in the US on a regular basis. Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.
Re: (Score:2)
People sue, and win against, the federal government in the US on a regular basis. Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.
But it does, as the original poster points out, require the government to agree to be sued. Yes, there are a series of things you can sue the government over enshrined in law, but this amounts to prior agreement to wave immunity in the cases covered by the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd liken it to, when you were a kid, and you had a gripe/complaint about your parents. You'd have to petition your parents for a change of rules or procedures.
If only there were a separate but co-equal someone to your parents you could petition for redress of your grievances. I'd liken it to, the US courts and the US legislature/executive branch.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd liken it to, when you were a kid, and you had a gripe/complaint about your parents. You'd have to petition your parents for a change of rules or procedures.
If only there were a separate but co-equal someone to your parents you could petition for redress of your grievances.
There is (in the traditional family, at least). If Dad won't listen, you go to Mom, or vice versa. Of course, Mom and Dad generally have a very similar perspective, and have strong reasons to be closely aligned. Like branches of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about New Zealand rather then America, which seems to have a stronger form of sovereign immunity then countries with a sovereign now. I don't know about New Zealand but here in Canada the legislature has pretty well got rid of sovereign immunity for torts so the people (but not necessarily the Provinces) are free to sue the Crown (when acting as the government) generally. I believe the UK is similar in that the people can sue the Crown in right of the government but not the actual Queen. Note
Re: (Score:2)
All you are saying is that a government can go rogue and not rule by law. That's true, as might can make right, but it is still a form of tyranny.
Think of it as a contract, one side can break it, especially if they have more power, but it doesn't make it right when they break it.
Re: (Score:2)
Since New Zealand is part of the British Commonwealth, they share the UK's common law which includes sovereign immunity. So I too am curious if the kiwi government has allowed themselves to be sued in this manner.
Re: (Score:1)
IANAL, but Wikipedia says that sovereign immunity generally applies to immunity from foreign national courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that it is different in the US. Yet another reason not to live there
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference whether the law that the state gave itself says "I am always right, you can't sue me", or not.
Re: (Score:2)
In a free country, the people have to be able to sue the government when rights are trampled and many free countries have codified this in law. For a country to repeal that right of the people would be tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it is still a type of tyranny to remove that right.
There's also the weirdness that here, the courts, acting in the name of the sovereign, can overrule the the elected government, who are governing in the name of the sovereign.
Re:Sovereign immunity? (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK NZ does not have sovereign immunity , lots of people have successfully sued the government.
NZ only has ONE police force, funded from central government funds. There are no elected law enforcement agents , and the head of any government department is also not forced to resign with any change of government. To become a judge is actually quite difficult in NZ, and is generally outside the sphere of political interference.
NZ used to have access to the UK privy council for legal appeals, many cases were taken there against the government and rulings were made against the government.
For wrongful imprisonment it depends on if you are found innocent vs not guilty, and there is a formula used to work out the payment, though the government has to approve final settlement, however this too can be appealed through the courts.
If he can prove the losses, there is a good chance he could receive the compensation he asks for, however I suspect he is likely to get at most 10% of what he is asking for, though local Maori has successfully received compensation for over $1 Billion
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Governments are held accountable to their constituents in different ways around the world.
The USA said you can't sue us, but you have the right to arm yourself to the teeth.
NZ said you can't own a gun and we can out fire you, but it's your constitutional right to hold us accountable in court.
You'll find a lot of commonwealth nations followed the UK in this. The UK introduced laws that made the Crown liable in 1947. NZ followed suit in 1950, and that was subsequently added to their Bill of Rights.
I presume no sane government would make a law that subjects the country to that large liabilities.
Why not? Go
Re: (Score:2)
But we have had a change of government (Score:2)
I think he should be able to sue the National party and all members who were involved at the time.
It was their decision to allow what happened.
The rest of the government and the taxpayers of New Zealand should have no liability.
Apart from that, I still don't understand why they haven't just pushed him onto a plane and sent him off to meet with the FBI or whoever.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't suggesting the government could absolve itself of ALL responsibility, just the correct placing of blame for those who dealt with that super criminal, who probably bribed one of them to get citizenship in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
There were a number of parties involved;
-- Somebody in charge of the intelligence agency which decided to treat the man like a foreigner with no legal rights, having not read the newspapers or whatever to notice that he had gained citizenship already.
-- A judge who signed surveillance and/or search warrants without noticing they were not the correct forms.
-- An MP or person of ministerial persuasion who bowed to pressure from a foreign government and put pressure on one or more departments to take action wi
Re:But we have had a change of government (Score:5, Insightful)
his criminal activity
Please define his criminal activity that he has committed under NZ law.
While you're at it, mull over this hypothetical:
Homosexuality and the depiction of such is illegal in some countries. If someone performs in and distributes gay porn on the internet, should they be summarily extradited to one of those countries and suffer the consequences if that country demands it?
Re: (Score:2)
What, are we going to have a vote now and decide he is innocent based on popular opinion?
It's pretty damned obvious to a lot of people that he was complicate in numerous activities which bent the law in a lot of countries. Just because he skipped town and came to hide in NZ should not be a shield against such activities, at least not when that amount of money is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
The money concern is that people with great gobs of cash at their disposal get to go places others can't and get away with behavior that other cannot.
The guy would not have got into our country without the wealth he held and the promise he was going to make investments here.
The money he creamed from his internet activities came from other peoples work and intellectual properties (regardless of how much we hate the movie industry etc) and said money elevated him above the status of a normal citizen.
You may n
Re: (Score:3)
his criminal activity Please define his criminal activity that he has committed under NZ law.
Well, New Zealand is a signatory to the Berne Convention and a member of the World Trade Organization, which not only means that New Zealand honors US copyrights (and vice versa), but that the countries have certain reciprocal obligations around enforcement.
And although I haven't followed it closely, as I recall the NZ High Court endorsed Dotcom's extradition to the US last year. OTOH, that doesn't mean everything else the NZ police did was legal or correct, and their overreaching and screwups are the bas
Re: (Score:2)
Then trial him for copyright infringement in his own country. There's no need for extradition if reciprocal obligations are in place.
Oh wait, then the punishment would be much less severe and US corporations would not be able to have the satisfaction that they so urgently demand.
This is the bit that sticks in most people's throats I think. The pandering to US corporate interests. Sure, the guy is a dick. But due process was not followed, and that dick has had his reputation trashed, his assets seized, and h
Re: (Score:2)
Except, I am not a criminal. I am not hiding from another country's legal system, and have not made millions of dollars through dodgy practices.
The problem with this is that the "protecting" legal system can often mistakenly punish the innocent or fail to deal appropriately with the guilty. In this case, the fact that some over-zealous officers of the law got their paperwork wrong does not alter the space-time continuum sufficiently to have prevented his criminal activity from happening in the first place
Except currently he's not a criminal, legally anyway. He's not yet been convicted of anything. Heck, he's only been *accused* of something in a foreign jurisdiction not even in NZ. Until he is convicted then none of that is true, merely alleged.And allegations aren't enough to strip rights.
Hell Yes (Score:1)
I agree with this action. As a New Zealand I am ashamed of the way he was treated, more so over how the NZ Government bowed to pressure from the USA. 6.8 billion, sure - he's gone a a silly number knowing that if it settles he might get less than 10%. I actually hope he wins.
Re: (Score:2)
As a New Zealander, I wish he wasn't even allowed in here in the first place.
He's a convicted criminal and lied in his residency application.
I don't care where he goes. Send him back to Hong Kong or Germany.
Re: (Score:1)
He's far more likely to get 1% than he is to get 10%. Even that would probably be one of the largest payouts in a court case in NZ in a long time.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, that should be 0.1% ($6.8M).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing of value would have been lost.
Re: (Score:2)
And who in government or any government agency is "punished" by him taking this action?
Not a one of them.
Who suffers from this? New Zealanders, the taxpayers and those who rely on the things achieved with tax dollars. That is who suffers. Along with our legal system being tied up for gods know how many combined man hours, when they have plenty of work to do already.
It would be much more useful if Dotcom were to identify specific individuals who did not follow the laws of the land, and tried to get specif
Suing for "damages" (Score:1)
How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Dotcom lived in New Zealand, but the Mega companies had nothing to do with either NZ or Germany.
Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bullshit.
I don't like Kim Dotcom, but Megaupload is in principle nothing different than Dropbox or OneDrive and even though he did not have to comply with the US DMCA law, he actually facilitated the US govt and removed things for which a take-down notice was issued.
At some point he was asked by the US government to retain files that were 'pirated' on Megaupload's servers, which was later used against him. Even though there is proof that this was done at the behest of the government.
The reason why Dropbox and OneDrive can exist is the fact that these are US companies. The US, not just the corporations, but its legal enforcer, the US government, will attempt stamp out any competition.
On top of that, sending a anti-terror squad to his house to arrest him, while a letter from the justice department telling him to come to the nearest police office, would have had a similar, but somewhat less dramatic effect.
He was meant to be made an example, with John Key sucking up to Obama and his RIAA/MPAA masters.
As a kiwi I hope he doesn't make progress with his damages suit, but if it does, they should present the bill to hair pulling, too sleazy to be a second card dealer, John Key.
Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having copyrighted materials on your server is not necessarily illegal. Accessing them by one link may be legal and accessing them by another might be illegal. It can be very difficult to tell if one of the uploads was legal. It's hard to impossible to write satisfactory laws here.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. Totally agree, especially about the Germans not putting up with a bs web site with zero or no moderation over the content being posted.
I mean seriously to all the knuckle heads commenting about liberties and freedoms... Just go and post a off topic comment and maybe throw in some abusive, pornographic or other illicit / illegal content on this discussion and just see how long your comment lasts before it is MODERATED.
I think the judge will consider the nature of what the Megaupload business was an
Re: (Score:2)
The monetary value of software downloaded has no relation at all to the financial damages experienced by a company. I admit, I downloaded AutoCAD. I would never in my right mind buy it. What did happen though is I learnt how to use it and subsequently I requested a copy for use in my office.
The monetary damage of AutoCAD being available to me via megaupload is at present a large negative number.
Re: (Score:2)
By that same logic, you should also calculate the "financial damage caused" by Uber (which is also in business by violating the law) to the taxi companies, you might also end up with far more than whatever Uber is worth today.
True, wonder why they don't raid Uber's offices? They seem to be in trouble with some law somewhere every week.
Re: (Score:3)
They raided Uber in Quebec recently. Seems Uber has software to delete everything when the cops bust down the door. https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
I feel conflicted (Score:1)
Kim Dotcom is a wanker of the highest order, however having read the Statement of Claim I'd have to take his side.
Facts are facts. The guy already got a 6-figure settlement from the police for their SWAT-style raid when nobody in the house had a history of violence. The use of those tactics on a woman who was 7 months pregnant with twins has horrific optics. It's readily apparent that everyone involved acquiesced to the desires of the MPAA, legal procedures be damned.
If the US Government can go after him
Re: (Score:2)
So many people get killed from SWAT raids, couldn't this have been one of them? I mean, it's not like this blob is hard to miss.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have made an exception, for the greater good. The need of the many and all that.
One thing this guarantees... (Score:2)
If he has anything close to a legitimate case, won't this guarantee his extradition to the U.S.?
Re: (Score:2)
won't this guarantee his extradition to the U.S.?
How?
Re: (Score:2)
By pissing off the only one that stands between him and being thrown across the big pond?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it should work, agreed. But if I was dependent on a country's interest in protecting their sovereignty against an overreaching international bully, I wouldn't try to give this country a reason to instead try hard to find some kind of loophole in its own law to get rid of me.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know Kimmie's ability to relocate right now is limited.
How much in NZ's fault? (Score:2)
It was the USA government which seized Megaupload's assets and shut the company down overnight. This was clearly wrong, because it was done on the basis of legal proceedings similar to issuing a search warrant. Megaupload was utterly destroyed without having any opportunity to put its side of the argument to a court. (I'm not saying Megaupload could have successfully have defended itself, but justice demands it should have had the opportunity.)
I can well believe that Dotcom has some case to make against NZ,
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that the US shut down Megaupload, with at best unclear legal justification, destroying DotCom's business. The business assets were in the US. The New Zealand government was (as far as I know) not a party to that. While the New Zealand government obviously mistreated him, it didn't destroy his business, which is largely what he's complaining about.
pressing need? (Score:2)
Something happened that he needs publicity again, or just his narcissistic ego playing up?
It's a bullshit lawsuit, of course, and will be laughed out of court, but look there, headline! Omg, can you possibly be more transparent in your actions?
Why is /. promoting career criminals narcissism? He bought ads on here recently or what?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, GWH is a war criminal by any unbiased standard , so what exactly is the argument? That he wasn't brought to court? Well, that's due to a technicality called immunity, not because the case is weak.
Kimble, on the other hand, provably is a criminal, and has been convicted before.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He SUED for loss of reputation? (Score:2)
Considering his only reputation was that he's a fraud, an inside trader and generally an asshole that would throw his partners under a bus for shits and giggles (and getting a get-out-of-jail card for it) numerous times, he should rather be PAYING anyone that manages to make him shed his reputation!
Kimmie, here's a tale for you (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the New Zealand authorities are the ONLY thing that keeps you from getting thrown to the wolves the US are...
A mouse was fleeing from the cat and came to a cow. The mouse begged "hide me!", which prompted the cow to drop a huge, smelly big cow pat onto the mouse, covering it fully. The cat came along and didn't see the mouse, the mouse on the other hand squeaked and squeaked, happy to be safe from the cat.
The cat heard the squeaking and picked up the mouse on its tail, cleaned the mouse of the manure and ate it.
Moral of the story: Not everyone that shits on you is your enemy. Not everyone that pulls you out of the shit is your friend. And when you're up past your neck in manure, shut the fuck up!
Kim made a good point regarding YouTube . . (Score:2)
I think Kim Dotcom did have a point when he pointed out that youtube allows people to access tons of copyrighted material (you can listen to practically any song that you want). So why aren't google execs being arrested?
The NZ tax payer won't want him here (Score:2)
Think about it....those billions of dollars have to come from somewhere if the government has to pay up....and where does the government get their money from?
Punish the majority for the actions of the few. For someone who wants to stay in New Zealand, effectively suing the citizens of the country you want to stay in for billions of dollars seems a bit counterproductive.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxpayers of New Zealand elected the government that violated its own laws. How is this different from Bush getting us into an unnecessary war that cost trillions, destabilized the Middle East, and helped form ISIS? I didn't vote for the guy, but I still get to pay for what he did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both are potentially expensive decisions that I disapproved of. Granted, they're different in size and numbers of people killed and international relations, but the taxpayer-pays part is the same.
Re:Kim Dotcom (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so you don't like him. Neither do I, for that matter.
But is that a reason to violate his rights like that? How'd you like it to have everything taken away from you just because some jerkface government took a disliking to you?
And that really is the problem. "We don't like you" is not supposed to be a valid reason for the law. No matter how loathsome the defendant.
Re:Kim Dotcom (Score:5, Insightful)
I really, really hope he does win. The New Zealand Police rolled over like a pack of craven lickspittles when the US government called despite the case being terrible (as subsequent court rulings have shown).
The other thing that smells bad about the whole thing is the way they went in guns drawn as if he was some kind of threat. The police here do not routinely carry firearms, and that's the way we like it. If a couple of detectives had walked up to his front door and knocked, they would have achieved the same end.
I have often wondered why the video of the armed arrest was shown on the TV news the very night of the raid. Is it appropriate for the police to conduct trial by media?
Re:Kim Dotcom (Score:5, Insightful)
Another Kiwi here in general agreement with you.
On one hand Dotcom's last business plan was literally to steal revenue from websites like mine - the websites that feed my children. For that I wish a slow painful punishment on him.
On the other hand I love my country and seeing our government and police roll over and behave like American thug cops was very disturbing.
I honestly can't decide which is worse - Dotcom winning or the American bullies winning. It's a no-win situation from my perspective.
Re:Kim Dotcom (Score:5, Insightful)
Which buildings/vaults did Kim break in to? Do you have security footage? How many literal dollars, Kiwi or otherwise, did he make off with? Did one of those cool exploding dye packs color him neon pink?
FOR THE ONE THOUSANDTH TIME: Copyright infringement =/= Theft.
Re:Kim Dotcom (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally someone gets it.
Just because a career criminal is in conflict with the US government he doesn't suddenly become a saint. When two bullies fight, the proper thing to do is not to root for one of them to win, but to hope they beat each other up badly. There can be two wrong sides to an argument.
You don't need to decide which is worse - they are both terrible assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Facilitating copyright infringement. Specifically, providing means to perform copyright infringement in a way that makes finding the infringers exceptionally difficult.
Boils down to accessory to a crime.
He took sufficient precautions to create a solid plausible deniability defense - solid enough that the case against him simply cannot be won. Everyone knows he's guilty, but he made damn sure there would be no solid proof of that - there's only a glaringly specific set of circumstances surrounding the inexpl
Re: Kim Dotcom (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course, Big Al was just an innocent used furniture salesman, and he missed the date on his taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Facilitating copyright infringement. Specifically, providing means to perform copyright infringement in a way that makes finding the infringers exceptionally difficult.
Citation needed.
What trial convicted him of that crime? Oh... it's just your uninformed opinion then? Nothing to see then... moving along...
Citation [justice.gov].
This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime.
The post you are replying to is talking about the crimes he was alleged to have done. Nobody is saying that he did them, but what he is charged with.
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a society where we have decided upon something called the monopoly on violence.
I don't agree with everything they do with that monopoly, but the fact is that our basic fundamental laws specifically establish the government as the only legitimate entity allowed to use violence to achieve its goals.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kim Dotcom (Score:4, Insightful)
I honestly can't decide which is worse - Dotcom winning or the American bullies winning. It's a no-win situation from my perspective.
This isn't even in the same book. Kim should definitely win. The rule of law was abused and that should be corrected above all, even if a sleazebag like Kim walks away with lots of money. He'll lose it elsewhere soon enough or actually do something illegal, and then you can use rule of law as justified.
Re:Kim Dotcom (Score:4, Insightful)
I honestly can't decide which is worse - Dotcom winning or the American bullies winning. It's a no-win situation from my perspective.
How about: the Rule of Law winning? Documented norms that apply to everyone from the bum on the street corner to Bill Gates are a win for everyone.[1]
In this particular case, it means that New Zealand should have followed its own laws, procedures and the treaties to which it is signatory without regard to political pressure brought by the United States. If those laws indicated that Dotcom should be arrested and extradited, well and good. If, as appears to be the case, New Zealand authorities violated their own laws, then Dotcom deserves compensation. I seriously doubt that he deserves 6.8B NZD. In an ideal outcome he ends up exactly where he would have without the illegal police action, which isn't "winning" it's "not losing".
[1] Yeah, everyone knows that the bum on the street corner and Bill Gates do not get treated the same way, but that just means it's an aspirational goal toward which we should work, not something we should cynically laugh off. The further we are from it, the more seriously we need to take it and the more strongly we need to react when our appointed representatives fail to execute it.
Re: (Score:2)
Guns drawn and video leaked to TV news? Sounds like an FBI operation. Did they crash through his door at dawn too?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
toss flashbangs into the children's room.
Re: Mr. Dotcom? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And one of them could probably rip you in half if you had the balls to say so to his face.