Feeds

back to article Megaupload's founder downloads on Hollywood

New Zealand’s Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has dodged extradition to America until at least March 2013, following a New Zealand court’s decision to delay the hearing. Both Dotcom's lawyer and Crown lawyers representing the US government agreed to the delay, the result of concerns over the methods used to search Dotcom’s house …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

87,000 twatter users does NOT count as "The internet is uniting behind me".

You broke the law. You know it. What is preventing you from becoming somebodies fat bitch is procedural - they screwed up.

0
54
Anonymous Coward

You're absolutely right

What should have protected him is not being a US citizen, not being based in the US and not doing anything illegal according to the laws of the country where he was arrested.

It should never have come down to a procedural error, the request from the US should have been denied in the first place.

43
0
Boffin

Given the guy only just started on Twitter (this year?), I would think 87,000 followers is probably indicative of some interest in what he has to say.

Here in NZ, the perception I have, is that he is increasingly becoming a folk hero for all sorts of people. For the young/left wing they like that he is sticking it to he man (or at least Hollywood), while for conservation right wing types, they don't like that a foreign government agency can just shut-down a big business, freeze assets and restrict an individual's ability to defend themselves, all without apparently providing sufficient evidence, much less a conviction.

I doubt he is squeaky clean, but like to you clearly point out which exact laws he broke and why these are sufficient for the actions taken against him. Remember he has broken no laws in NZ.

It gets way beyond a procedural screw up, if it turns out (as it looks possible) that a non-US citizen, did not break any laws in the US (at least any that are worthy of deportation) but has had his business and life destroyed.

20
0
Silver badge

re: not sqeeky clean

no, he's a total wanker, but being a total wanker isn't a crime. To be honest, I'm not sure they even have enough to prosicute him under US law, let alone NZ law (as MegaUpload *DID* have a takedown procedure, even if the media companies didn't LIKE it)

16
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: re: not sqeeky clean

Good of you to decide who or what a wanker is. I see you present no evidence of such. I also see your post is worthless other than venting bile from your spleen. Kindly go back to your bedroom and do it on your own next time

3
8
Silver badge

"You broke the law. You know it."

Who's law? NZ's law? America's law? Hong Kong's law? Germany's law?

Is it illegal to own a file sharing company? Did he actually pirate material himself? What's the difference between Megaupload and Youtube?

At the end of the day he supplied a service that others were using illegally. No different to the ISP who supplied net access or google who linked to it.

This won't ever really make it to court because the case will fail because he isn't responsibile any more than car companies are liable for speeding and gun stores are for robberies

13
0

Wow, 23 thumbsdown so far? I am impressed :)

0
5

Hmmm not downvoted you yet,

Would you care to enlighten me as to what law he has actually broken before I do?

1
0
Silver badge

@pcsupport

I haven't voted you down, but I can't help but think that his Twitter head-count is not the only measure of his support; presumably most people who have used Megaupload are sympathetic. I don't know how many people that is, but I assume that there are more than 87,000 of them, given the assets Dotcom has amassed from the advertising and 'Premium' service.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: re: not sqeeky clean

Oh grow up. Unless you're literally debating whether or not he masturbates then the epithet of "wanker" is clearly entirely subjective. So yes, he does get to decide who is or not a wanker. You're heading that way yourself: "your post is worthless". As is yours. As is this one...

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: re: not sqeeky clean

and this one

0
1

Marmite man...

I can't decide whether to love or hate this guy. I think he's a bit of a dick and marked himself as a target by how he acted. I love the guy though because he is "sticking it to the man." There is no case here, only revenge of the lowest form, to which he is unable to defend himself. That makes him the underdog, and in this case I want the underdog to win!

@pcsupport. Actually the internet is uniting behind him, and for each Twitter user that supports him, there are probably ten others that feel the way in which he is being treated is manifestly unfair, and against both the spirit and letter of the law, either of the USA or New Zealand. I appreciate you may not like him, and you're probably right on him breaking the law, but please don't go speaking for me and everybody else with an opinion!

21
0
g e
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Marmite man...

Both sides are arseholes in this, it comes down to which arsehole you think is biggest and therefore support (if at all) the lesser arsehole.

So dotcom gets my thumbs up (no, that's not a euphemism)

0
2
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Told you so

I basically said this when he was arrested. They (The US cartels and their lapdogs the feds and gubberment) don't give a toss about this guy. They only wanted him out of the picture and his business dead. The easiest method of doing this is to do exactly what they are doing. Delay, delay, delay. All the while he is fighting the system his business is out of action and puts the willies up all the other companies doing the same thing.

The problem here is that he has no means to fast track through the courts. Just like many others who are 'in the spotlight' their cases drag on for months if not years. It's all a ruse. The US knows 'exactly' what it is doing. Sure they may lose their case. But by that time Megaupload will be dead and buried and they will have already won.

14
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Told you so

I thought this extradition would be dead after the just stated that the US didn't have a case against him. Due to the fact that the US government and motion picture industry are being nothing but bad asses, they are turning him into a true hero.

7
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Told you so

The key to winning is to take his money off him and close his business while in court, then cost him a fortune in legal fees by wasting years in court until he files for bankruptcy and can no longer fight it in court so is forced to plea bargin an end to it all.

If I was Kim, I'd want it in court as soon as possible as it will fail. If they let it drag out, he'll bleed to death first

So far the plan is working

5
0
Holmes

Re: Told you so

Thorne: looks like you are correct. I saw an article elsewhere earlier that suggested he was hurting big time financially, so much so he even announced (via his twitter account) he would go voluntarily to the USA if they would unfreeze his bank accounts.

I bet you they will not take him up on it. The goal here as you say is to bankrupt the man with legal bills now his business has been ruined and he no longer has access to his cash.

The deterrant they are trying to create is clear: "go against us and we'll ruin you"

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Told you so

As all the search warrants and seizures have been declared illegal, surely he must have his bank accounts back? In which case, surely he has a reasonable amount of money at the moment?

0
0
Devil

Copyleft.

Copyleft stolen from http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

>The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.  Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States.<

Or The Evil Collective (the six old men trying to control all governments), as I've come to call them (and is it really paranoia if they're actually out to get you?) - they're probably sucking on Satan's cock even as we speak.

Pond sucking scum lickers.

3
0

The fact people like pcsupport are the majority on this site now shows just how far it has fallen in the past 6 months.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

>people like pcsupport are the majority on this site

Really, Jeebus? Can you count? He wouldn't appear to hold the majority view if the comments in this thread are anything to go by. If what you say is true, you wouldn't expect him to to have (at the time of writing) 33 thumbs down and zero thumbs up.

0
0

Actually surprised by the amount of downvotes, I shall partially retract my initial assertion. However a quick bowse at any Julian Assange related article will give you reasons why I won't go back on it fully.

I'm still sad that anyone finds US theocratic world domination acceptable in 2012.

0
2
Happy

Make that 36 Downvotes

0
0

36 and counting :)

The problem as I see it is that people like Mr Assange (and yes, I don't like what he did as some people here have noticed), Dot Com etc think that there are two separate worlds and jurisdictions.

One, the real world is where you get caught speeding, get charged with attempted rape etc (yes Mr A, I'm looking at you) and have to face the music. The other world, the Internet world, is where people seem to think that they can do and say whatever they want and expect the real world to be able to do nothing about it. Unfortunately the likes of Mr A, Dot Com, Pirate Bay, Youtube etc seem to blur the boundaries of the two worlds and get confused when the real world invades the Internet world.

The Pirate Bay owners got slapped down by the courts and so has Mr Dot Com. One hosts only links to files, the other hosts a fair majority of those files. Who is legal and who is illegal? Neither.

Youtube - Google has paid enough money to people and companies to stop the courts etc forcing them to clean it up. If Google were subject to the same treatment and TPB, Dot Com etc then they would so get a hell of a shock.

End of inane ramblings.

Let the downvoting continue.

0
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

I agree

except for one key point. Regardless of whether we are in the real world or on the internet one thing still applies - Due Process.

In the Dotcom case due process is being used to punish a suspect - which is pitchfork and torches justice.

In the Assange case he is wiggling like a worm on a hook trying to avoid it.

So in reality the cases are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

1
0
Silver badge

There is only doubt because the lawmakers have so failed to keep the laws up to date. Most of our laws date to before the computer was even invented!! A fundamental requirement of any legal system is that it keeps up with the times and changing technology. The legal system will come into disrepute (as it has) if this is not the case. What is legal and what's illegal (according to the law) becomes dubious as the laws don't really 'fit'. Big business doesn't really want this situation addressed though, as everything becomes a court case to clarify the situation and they can outspend anyone and therefore pretty much win what they like.

The idea of indexing content is one such case. That's bit like saying Yellow Pages or adverts in magazines/papers can get those publishers into trouble if the targets of those adverts are found to have broken the law, or are suspect of doing so. Never heard of it happening though. But, what's the difference? They are advertising/indexing an illegal business. Course, doing it online with searches etc. makes the whole problem magnify. How many people use Yellow Pages etc. anymore? So, what's the issue there....none. Too few people to worry about. How many use online indexing sites? Loads.....so number of people is significant enough to worry about. Same rules should apply for both though.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Assange vs Dotcom

Assange and Dotcom? Very different cases, I wouldn't compare them.

Assange was in Sweden visiting the country at the time of his alleged sexual misdeeds so that falls into Swedish jursidiction. (sorry guys he's not being extradited to the USA, except in his head)

Dotcom? Never visited the USA and any crimes committed there would be civil not criminal offences in nature as it involves copyright infringement.

yet his house was raided on a now debunked warrent and his assets confiscated and handed over to the Americans who have no jurisdiction in that country and without extradition. Even the pirate bay case involved their home country not the USA.

See my point?

1
0
jke

What I don't like is the assumption that a law abiding person in one country can be carted off to another for trial under a different law. For example, I don't think that the current leadership in North Korea is made up of very nice people. There, that would be enough to get me executed. If it is alright for America to have locally lawful people extradited, why not the Koreans? I suppose that at the moment the North Koreans lack the drone technology to kill me and wreck half my street but again the must be looking at the aerial murders in the Middle East and wondering how hard it would be to develop this useful foreign policy tool.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"The actions by the [United States Department of Justice] clearly demonstrate that they don't have a case and that this ... was about killing Megaupload and creating a chilling effect to freeze the whole file-hosting sector. They achieved that,"

If Kim Dotcom thinks the US DoJ don't have a case then he should start proceedings to sue the US for destroying his business and loss of earnings.

Will need extra popcorn to watch this one.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

US DoJ should pay a significant amount of damages

Since DoJ is a part of US government I should say that about 10-20% of US 2012 GDP should be about appropriate size of the damages they owe to Mr. DotCom. Also life sentences for any DoJ employees involved in the case.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The U.S. government, like all governments, has sovereign immunity... so good luck with that.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.