Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
from the making-his-case dept
While Kim Dotcom is out on bail in New Zealand, he gave an interview to a New Zealand TV station. You can watch it below or read the transcript at the previous link:Also, while the interview focuses on the copyright issues, it avoids the key part of the charges, which is the criminal conspiracy issue. Obviously, those are built off of the copyright claims, but just fighting the copyright claims and ignoring the conspiracy charges is unlikely to be a winning strategy.
One key point he raises in the interview is the fact that, despite being in business for seven years, no MPAA studio ever took any legal action against them other than sending DMCA takedown notices which he claims they obeyed (the indictment suggests that Megaupload didn't necessarily have the greatest record on following takedowns):
JC: CNET, in an article that looked pretty well researched to me and well sourced said, and I quote, “among the copyright owners who’ve accused Megaupload of piracy, including software and video game companies none of them presented the FBI with more, quote, significant evidence, end quote, about Megaupload than the MPAA. Did any members of the MPAA come to you and say “we have concerns, Kim, about what’s going on in Megaupload”.Elsewhere he notes that he's an easy target because of his "flamboyant" past, but that, alone isn't illegal. But he also responds to the basic questions pretty clearly, noting that they can't proactively monitor the service, because (1) that's not required by law (2) it's technically impossible and (3) it could raise privacy questions under US law (that part might be a stretch, since the uploads weren't private, but public).
KD: Never. And I gotta tell you this – if you are a company that is hurt so much by what we are doing, billions of dollars of damage, you don’t wait and sit and do nothing. You call your lawyers and you try and sue us and try to stop us from what we are doing.
JC: So a cease and desist of some form or other. Did you ever receive any letters from members of the MPAA saying “the latest James Bond film is being exchanged, ad infinitum, through Megaupload, you must stop it”? Did you ever receive…
KD: Absolutely not. No legal document has ever reached us from any of these studios. The only thing that we get is Takedown Notices and them using the direct delete access on our website. So, isn’t it surprising to you that when I’m the pirate king and I’m causing all this damage that none of them has ever even attempted to sue us, to sue us for damages, you know? If you would run a business that loses billions of dollars because of me, you wouldn’t just sit there and do nothing. I mean, this investigation was ongoing for over two years, you know, the company was live for over seven years, the MPAA has always thrown names at us and called us all kinds of things but they’ve never actually done anything to you know, take us to court and for the very simple reason that there is a law in the US that protects us which is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protects online service providers from actions of their users and this is the same law that allowed Google to still exist, that allowed YouTube to still exist. You know that Viacom sued YouTube and YouTube claimed that they were protected by the DMCA and they won. And if you look at the YouTube case files, the emails that were exchanged internally we are a lamb compared to what was going on at YouTube at the time but these guys got away. They won their lawsuit and I’m sitting in jail, my house is being raided, all my assets are frozen without a trial, without a hearing. This is completely insane, is what it is.
I still think there are serious problems with the lawsuit, but the case against him is a bit bigger than what he portrays in the interview, and he's going to need a much stronger defense if he's going to actually win the case.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bail, copyright, dmca, kim dotcom, kim schmitz, new zealand, privacy
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
he comes off as a lying sack of shit.
Most of his justifications (and they are just justifications) are the same claptrap "not making it available fast enough" stuff that gets tosses around here. It's really way funnier to watch someone say it, rather than just reading a post.
This guy needs to shut up before he makes the case against him airtight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KD: Absolutely not. No legal document has ever reached us from any of these studios.
Methinks fat boy parses words pretty well. legal documents?
For someone that pays lawyers millions, you'd think he'd listen to their advice. I can't imagine a lawyer in his right mind who would authorize an interview like this. It's not being tried in the court of public opinion. And what he did was put himself on the record and perhaps limit what his lawyers may want to say, or not say at trial. Really stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Selective prosecution is pretty much what this is because he is right - google\youtube are, if you follow the same logic they are using against Megauploads, were and are vastly more egregious infringers than Megauploads ever was.
The reason i say that is that megauploads provided, in a nutshell, a locker for you to stow your stuff and the ability to give anyone you wanted the key [by giving them the URL] Youtube actually has the tools on their site to enable you to covert and publish videos that you got from pretty much anywhere. Indeed, youtube will make recommendations based on your previously viewed videos. If providing such tools and recommendations is not contributory, then how is a general locker service?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Actually, the defense can enter the entire interview as evidence for him, which might be a good idea as the persecution...I mean prosecution...will enter excerpts edited to fit their ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Once they received the DMCAs they took them down.
It may not have been as fast as the copyright holders would've liked, but still within the range specified by law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
From a technology perspective, you are talking about writing custom algorithms that will flag files, then parse the file names and contents, and then determine if they are infringing - to do that they need to have some sort of signature for the original to compare against. That takes servers, storage, bandwidth, manpower to program, electricity, etc. Its a colossal undertaking to even contemplate and would probably take more staff to develop and implement than the company employed at their height.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Actually, they can't generally. It's hearsay. If the prosecution enters only snippets against him on a hearsay exception (admission of party/opponent), defense then may be able to bring in other sections to clarify & show context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It worked for the pirate bay. Yes, they were found guilty, yes it was because of a kangaroo court, but they won the public opinion by a long shot. And a lot of that was because of how open they were about everything, the interviews they did (and documentary of the entire court case/tour bus deal), and just how accessible they were.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just wanted to point out one big case in which interviews meant winning the war but losing the battle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
From Spain. Where file sharing for personal use is totally and completely legal.
Where exactly is the legal problem with that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
It's like when somebody stashes bootleg records in a bus-station locker and gives the key to somebody else--the correct governmental response is to seize the bus company's assets nation-wide and shut down the bus company's entire business for YEARS while the case is investigated.
Makes perfect sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cool, go into business with your magical ability to detect infringing content across all the jurisdictions of the world if it's that easy. There's clearly a market for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cue the Ironic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
Thanks for playing "FAIL!", Kim Dotcom style.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just because a link can be made public doesn't mean that it WAS made public
I could for example use mega upload to put up a file i bought from my home, go to another machine at my work and download it so i could consume it there.
That would still be a private transaction because i never shared that link with anyone at all.
It also very difficult to tell the difference between that private act and me simply emailing the same file to someone who didn't pay for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
Yeah because there was no one using MU legitimately. No one ever wanted to email a file larger then 2mb.
Which is a fact you know because the MPAA told you so.
Thanks for playing, "completely making up facts to support your argument," **AA style.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As it turns out, the answer is 'very hard'.
To start with look at the easy part, 'fair use.' You can probably make a pretty good guess at whether or not a use is fair, but that's all you can do. Fair use is something that ultimately needs to be decided by a court.
The harder item to determine would be licensing. In order to determine whether or not a file is licensed, you would need to A) know the copyright status of the work (and this can vary with country!) B) know who the copyright holder is, and C) have access to the terms and conditions of every single license ever granted for the use of that work.
Good luck building that database. Even the creators of the work are finding they have to use a lawsuit in order to pry that information out of the big studios.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
People in NZ are scratching their heads wondering why this man was being arrested the way he was, with such an "American" show of force? They are seeing the NZ legal system being abused for US style persecution of someone. This is not how things work in New Zealand and allowing the US to corrupt the NZ legal system isn't going to go down well with public opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If not why not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As for his 'justifications.' I don't see any justifications, just pretty basic truth here. Maybe when you stop listening for your own justifications as to why he's guilty and start just simply listening, which is what no one in the MPAA, RIAA or Hollywood want to do, you'll actually learn something.
Just saiyan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So no they don't have the ability to "see" anything and should not have the ability to "see" what they want, there is a reason why the law is the way it is, it was made to protect democracy against monopolies and you apparently want to erode those safeguards in self interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
It's pretty hard to deny reality,but you sure are doing a good job trying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
How much would it cost to you personally to have to check every single transaction you do and clear it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What if you have a document that allows you to redistribute something, will a computer system ask for that before deleting anything?
How about fair use?
AI's are advancing but they are not there just yet, and when they are, why would we need judges?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
Its ridiculous to say and equal number of people must be uploading for it to have been legal uses. When my boss puts up a file my whole department downloads it, we don't all upload something first.
Its easy to make shit up, which is probably why you are so good at it.
"I was reading in the transcripts of IPI v RedHat that back in the day, 12 million unique IP addresses connected to RedHat and Fedora repositories to update/install systems. When I checked today, Fedora Project showed 1.913 million in a recent week." http://mrpogson.com/2011/03/27/how-many-people-use-gnulinux-lots/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
"I mailed Megaupload customer service politely multiple times and never got an answer"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080616052428AAC29IR
2) I would count the DMCA notices as complaints. If you're paying all of those people to handle the raft of DMCA notices, a proactive business manager might wonder if there's a better way. If you're really dealing with so many complaints coming in from the world, that may be a clue that you're running a bad business.
3) As Mike noted-- thank you-- Dotcom dodges the most damning evidence that he shared profits with the pirates making him their partner.
Again, this shows the total disregard for the other people in society-- often a clue that someone is a criminal.
And he takes a very lacksidasical attitude toward "policing" the uploading streams. Imagine you're running a bar. Every Friday night you serve too much alcohol and people start fighting outside, smashing some cars or raping some women. You could take the Kim Dotcom attitude and say, "Hey, I can't police the folks once they get liquored up here. I'm not responsible. It's not my fault she got raped."
Maybe that shirking of responsibility is legally correct. But the responsible business owners fix those problems before they metastasize. The bar owners serve less concentrated drinks. They fix the problem or get driven out of business by the people hurt by the collateral damage.
Any fool could have seen that paying the uploaders for content was incentivizing piracy. That's why responsible cloud services stopped immediately. There's no reason to pay uploaders who are supposedly the kind of file transfer customer that Dotcom claims he was pursuing. In a normal business, you charge more to your heaviest consumers of resources. You don't give them a rebate.
Dotcom doesn't discuss this. Gosh, he's a creep and a loon. I guess he doesn't have any choice by to lunge for any potential defense, but what a pox on society.
All the more reason we shouldn't call setting up an FTP server to be "innovation".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
And it was incentivizing legitimate content creators, but we'll ignore that little fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's political as much as it is legal.
It's unfortunate that Dotcom is neither attractive nor charismatic in person -- because that matters in politics.
I imagine that's not coincidence: with so many file locker services and file sharing services to choose from, the prosecutors could easily have gone shopping for just the right image they wanted on their "Wanted" poster -- they are engaged in politics and manipulation, not seeking justice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
"RAPE! this guy like and allows RAPE!"
"Gosh, I'm a creep and a loon" ftfy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
When literally millions of simultaneous uploads and downloads are being made every day, how can you possibly filter them all? It would take an army of people and resources, which is not practical.
Even if you only look at the top most downloaded files, I suspect the vast majority will be legal files at the top, and somewhere in the middle might be some copyright material. This doesn't even consider that megaupload has no way of knowing if it's infringing or not. Common sense certainly doesn't help - The file called "LordOfTheRingsTwoTowers" may in fact just be popular fan art, not even a movie file. Megaupload has no way of knowing the age of the uploader (maybe the location) but both of those are completely irrelevant anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't think he will ever receive a fair trial in the American system unless he is able to get a jury trial in that case it might be a good idea to give as many interviews as he can so people are aware of the power of jury nullification.
No matter what the law says if it is viewed as bad the jury have the power to grant innocence to anyone they like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It will matter in the courtroom as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why hasn't the DEA jailed Hollywood for all the "contributory" drug use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The video is Dotcom making out-of-court statements of fact about his case. Hearsay if he tries to use it to prove the truth of his statements.
So to get it in, it has to fall under an exception, one of which is the prosecution can use it against him - especially if he says it differently on the stand. And of course, he gave them 20+ minutes of stuff that they can use to try to shred him on cross-examination if he veers even slightly off the exact words in that interview. That's the not-wise part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is funny how views change down the years for me.
Weed did not kill me, or anyone else I knew that smoked it. As a matter of fact, all of my friends that smoked it went to college and got degrees from computer science to law. I was told in fact in school and by adults that drugs would kill me.
Then I saw them drinking and acting worse than weed ever changed people. And that was legal. So in my middle teens I learned a valuable lesson. Law does not equal morality. Morality has it's place in society, but determining what is moral and what is not is a dodgy area, because special interest will pick up the moral flag and drop it when it suits their agenda.
So how to decide? I can only do what I think is right, and follow the laws accordingly based on the risk I am willing to take for what I believe in.
So the question gets harder when I try to determine not only what I believe, but what I would like to have my children believe.
I worry for my 4 year old son and morality and legal decisions he will have to make growing up in a land where right and wrong are only tools that the government(i.e. special interest) use to strip you of your rights.
I have some outdated beliefs that I do not want to pass on but it is difficult for me to let go of. In the end though, my fears for my children's well being are sharp and visceral.
If I teach them justice and fire in their beliefs, they very well may be persecuted. Unfortunately, the other option is to try and suffocate who they might be or become.
My 4 year old is potentially going to grow up in a world where resources are dwindling and population continues to grow, and morality will possibly be bypassed by survival.
That terrifies me, and is driving me to a point where I feel like I may have to make some risky revolutionary choices at some point to defend the future and freedoms I want him to have.
I don't believe that the corporations will let go of the profits and laws that hold them in power without blood and sacrifice. This idea, which in America 20 years ago seemed far fetched and crazy is reaching a critical mass at a faster pace every day.
We will innovate and protect our freedoms, or we will see blood, mark my words. You see it world wide, governments people bled for taking back freedoms at a rapid pace for the good of society. Follow the money friends. I will stop my rant, but these are a chunk of my fears, and these censorship laws never lead to a happy society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's all over at least two radio stations here with the morning jockeys - why did such a crime need that much force to arrest him? What I'm hearing is that everyone thinks the US is forcing the issue.
Of course, we're a country with a total population smaller than most large cities overseas. Our opinion isn't exactly going to count for much on a global scale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why try to flood youtube with porn when there are like 80 youtube-for-porn sites already? Maybe if there were sites for half of this copyrighted material youtube wouldn't be constantly battling people putting it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because legitimate content creators wouldn't be using that as an incentive to use the site at all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have issue with your number 3.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually that is exactly why they have to ignore it. The law does not require them to police all of their users content but once they start they become liable for the shit they miss.
They are not law enforcement officers. They are a private company that has no legal requirement to stop people from committing civil offenses.
If you were right then Viacom wouldn't have lost their case against youtube. But they did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.#District_Court_ruling
I'm sure you know better than Judge Stanton though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
Congrats, maybe you should work for the copyright holders and help them find their content. Oh wait they don't want to pay you they want to force the websites to hire people to do this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that why microsoft is/was planning to open a filelocker? They wanted to get in on that sweet sweet pirate money? Or do you think that a lot of people actually wanted to use the legitimate service?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
International Law
And even if they did, how the hell are they supposed to follow the laws of every country out there on the internet? Its not possible and not practical. As far as I am concerned no country has jurisdiction on the internet AND only has jurisdiction over companies and individuals that are based in that country.
We can't dictate the law for the entire world. We here in the United States need to stop trying to. Our government has no right to do this. And they have no place holding up ANY company's business model. This is ridiculous. We need to remove that power from our politicians.
They should never be able to initiate prosecution in defense of a company's revenue. That is not their job. Their job is to protect the people and promote advancement of our world as well as manage public services.
The United States has no right to freeze this man's accounts. They have no right to arrest or take from him. This is insanity. I really hope that he sues the United States government in international court and wins re-compensation for lost income and his suffering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or to be more succinct. "these people are committing civil crimes but its too hard for us to do anything about it, here are 10s of millions of dollars, do everything you can to make hundreds of millions of people actions criminal."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
In fact, by checking my CHARMAP.EXE application, I can tell you that only -∞.π% of the users were infringers. I got it from the same source as you (Imaginary land).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A power they have but seldom use, seldom understand, and seldom are made aware of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: International Law
We don't, its not "our government" anymore. Unless you are a corporate citizen and/or give them millions of dollars to exert your will over the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Exactly
It also very difficult to tell the difference between that private act and me simply emailing the same file to someone who didn't pay for it.'
I think quite a few people were uploading to file hosts as an additional back-up for their back-up type thing. Free, unlimited ... and LEGAL even if it was copyrighted. All file host services keep track of the number of downloads and a file shared between private personal computers would have maybe 5 downloads. A file shared publicaly would have 100-1000. That's a big difference.
I thought the interview was good. The indictment was a press release. It's not a black and white case but can be very helpful to get press and public involved in covering copyright and patent issues.
The issue that in some countries file sharing is still legal was never brought up. I think a bigger issue is whether the US wants to become the world's copyright cops. MPAA and RIAA didn't pay for this raid, the taxpayers did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A side issue...
But I'm from New Zealand! I can't watch New zealand news? A bit ironic really; now I'll have to pirate it.
I wonder if it's avalible on Megaupload ...., wait..., no...., Arghhhh.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kim Dotcom is a realist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Exactly
I agree it is a big difference, but its still not their job to start looking at all the files that have been shared more than 100 times or whatever X value they want to make up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Warning, NSFW and annoyingly guttural Dutch spoken as well as ecstatic moaning which sounds more like the morning hack of a smoker stricken with TB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wklVrKQEx40&feature=related
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drug addicts dying from overdose are a constant on that industry and I don't see nobody doing anything about it.
Why should a file locker care what is being used for?
It is not their problem unless they get specifics from someone else and they apparently took all the "reasonable" measures possible, preempting anything is not a reasonable measure and it never was, so unless you have something else you are just full of shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Megaupload had the bad takedown of the music video.
Warner bros took down files on Rapidshare illegally.
No huge difference on the issue here. The fact remains they still had a way to address the actual infringements.
Your panda problem I can't help though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But yeah no system is perfect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They should be able to keep track of all the money they give the artists and make sure it isn't going to illegal drugs.
If they just knew who they were doing business with they could prevent their money from going to drug kingpins and fueling death and violence.
Thank you AC! This will provide hours of counter analogy fun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why police officers are not hold accountable for the crimes others commit?
They should be doing much more to stop crime and not just turning a blind eye according to you.
That is how stupid you sound.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
from the hard-to-have-good-grammar-if-your-mouth-is-full-of-cock dept
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
"One popular artist giving away songs = how many legit downloads?"
On a site with 50 million or so hits a day, the 100,000 downloads of a popular song would be, what 2%? Well within the window.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
1.913 million in a week is nice. Mega did 350 million a week. See how that works out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Actually, they can't generally. It's hearsay. If the prosecution enters only snippets against him on a hearsay exception (admission of party/opponent), defense then may be able to bring in other sections to clarify & show context."
Actually, "hearsay" is quoting third parties without corroboration.
Kim Dotcom is the first party, the actual speaker, stating what he knows, not quoting anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.[3] When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay, and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.[4]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I keep picturing, Tony Montana of the Internet........
"You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy. Well, shay gonite to the badguy"
or Arnie
"Get to the chopper!”......“Do it!”......“Do it!Nooooow”
Im so confused!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
System management servers in corporations do that all the time. Your not installing a backup you backed up, your installing from a central common installation point.
The system restore is the common software/os/applications that are common to all the machines on the network.
Same principle should apply to tv shows(which you paid for..) etc.
Want to change the laws to say that you can't download stuff you didn't personally backup even though you own a valid licence to the content, and your talking about bankrupting the entire US economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: from the hard-to-have-good-grammar-if-your-mouth-is-full-of-cock dept
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kim made NO incriminating (inculpatory) statements in the intervie.
Therefore, according to you, since his interview contains ONLY exculpatory statments, there's no harm to him in the interview, and it can only serve to turn public opinion on his side, which will prove useful later on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Exactly
My favorite episode of doctor who blink was on a filelocker, and i kept redownloading it every time i wanted to watch it.
Once i was done i deleted it.
second the law doesn't make them keep track and evaluate
in fact if they were stupid enough to do so, they would INCREASE their liability for any that they missed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But no girl is willing to bone him right now.
Are you saying that because he wants something right now but can't get it legally, he's justified in obtaining it illegally? Via abusing the rights of someone else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wonder if he'd be willing to "visit" america, if he was promised a speedy court date and unrestricted acces to his family and an agreed upon amount of his assets sent to his family if the sentence goes against him?
Popcorn can only last so long man!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Our opinion isn't exactly going to count for much on a global scale.
And in both cases, we were opting for peace rather than war.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hearsay
No it isn’t. I was a juror at a trial where such evidence was presented, and it was not classed as hearsay, because the statement was being made to someone who should have known the facts, and who didn’t seem to disagree with them.
Of course, IANAL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are you saying that because he wants something right now but can't get it legally, he's justified in obtaining it illegally? Via abusing the rights of someone else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
SHOCKING, I KNOW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He’s Such A Big Guy ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
100% Nonsense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 100% Nonsense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
Then there would be plenty of human error with pressing the wrong button for any number of reasons. In only 5 second you cannot get a good feel of the media. Then in light of media under copyright they do not know if uploaded lawfully such as with a personal back-up or the rights owner distributing their own work.
We can then add in computer software, digital books, music and stuff you don't even know what it is.
Now if we add in the company now being liable to mistakes we just hit an extremely stupid plan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Most importantly those in the entertainment industry have been saying some very bad things recently, including this indictment, and he did need to speak up to set the record straight. You simply cannot let others slander you in propaganda without fighting back in an honest voice.
I would be surprised if he did not go through these questions with a lawyer beforehand but this was pretty idiot proof stuff all about the DMCA and privacy.
As to the bigger claims then they should be left for the trial but copyright infringement is certainly the core of this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Most importantly those in the entertainment industry have been saying some very bad things recently, including this indictment, and he did need to speak up to set the record straight. You simply cannot let others slander you in propaganda without fighting back in an honest voice.
I would be surprised if he did not go through these questions with a lawyer beforehand but this was pretty idiot proof stuff all about the DMCA and privacy.
As to the bigger claims then they should be left for the trial but copyright infringement is certainly the core of this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
He seems to be doing well enough being the reformed playboy type now living the life of an honest family man. The overkill nature of this raid also highlights he is person his adversaries want to remove.
I can't say if he could win over a Jury but he is making a good start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unfortunately the courtroom is the stage, the jury the audience, and the lawyers the actors. The winner is the one who can put on the best performance.
Our main hope would be this jury being Internet users but the prosecution may reject all Internet users and go with really old people who know little about technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 100% Nonsense
You are right, you managed to spew 100% nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I miss Megaupload
Within weeks of the site going down I had literally lost count of the number of times I found a forum post where someone had created just the solution to a problem I was having, but the link was to a zip file on megaupload.
When DotCom wins, I wonder how much he will be compensated for his billion dollar business?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: He’s Such A Big Guy ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
Are you joking? Do you really think if the MPAA, RIAA, et al wanted to make a serious legal complaint to the company they would just send the website an email?
"If you're really dealing with so many complaints coming in from the world, that may be a clue that you're relying on a bad business model."
If you're really having to send out so many "complaints" to a file locker website, that may be a clue that you're running a bad business.
"Again, this shows the total disregard for the other people in society-- often a clue that someone is a criminal."
I'd say he was showing considerable regard for the 180 million happy Megaupload users. How many people are in the US movie business again? A few hundred thousand from memory. Why are they more important?
"Imagine you're running a bar. Every Friday night you serve too much alcohol and people start fighting outside, smashing some cars or raping some women."
As soon as you start using analogies involving rape, or any other serious violent crime, you sound like complete asshole. It's copyright infringement, nobody gets hurt. Your movies and songs are not that important.
"Gosh, he's a creep and a loon."
I hope you realise that's exactly what people here think about you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 100% Nonsense
Absolutely, positively false. 512(a) (and probably (b)) were written with ISP's and "passive conduits" in mind, but there are three more categories of entities covered under "safe harbors" laws: user-generated content sites such as YouTube (section (c)), search engines (section (d)), and schools (section (e)).
These guys recruit and pay thieves to upload files that they know are stolen property.
First, it's not "stolen property," according to the Supreme Court. Second, even the indictments do not claim that they "recruit and pay thieves." They offered rewards programs for popular content, but there is absolutely nothing unlawful about that whatsoever.
I won't even touch the "all the files are stolen" line, which is obviously a flat-out lie, and many of the people who comment here have personally lost files that they did not share due to the seizures.
Now, I don't think "DotCom" is innocent of copyright infringement. If the indictment is even half correct, I'm pretty sure that he's going to lose a lot of court battles.
That doesn't mean you have to lie about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Our opinion isn't exactly going to count for much on a global scale.
Nothing could be further than the truth. The US Prosecutors who are basing their whole case on a US Grand Jury indictment (and that in itself is telling.. ham sandwich anyone?) and is basically telling everyone that Kim a Kiwi who has made good has done these things and needs to be punished by the 'protectors of the world'
This interview is about pushing the message of how everyday Kiwi's think the USA is worse than even it was in 85 or 2003, that Democracy in the USA is basically non existent and how New Zealand needs to fight to keep its sovereignty and not kowtow like the UK, Europe and in some ways Australia (with Assange) is to US interests.
When the USA has an extradition treaty and justice system that is equitable with the rest of the world, maybe this wouldn't be so bad. Until then every Kiwi should tell the USA to suck chips.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It then would become a character type situation under the extradition case. if though he gets to the USA then yep they can do what you stated since hearsay exceptions are different there as I understand it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They don't just mean DMCA notices, which do not actually carry or have any legal weight nor obligation outside of the USofA.
Oh and I'd authorise it, though even if the Interview wasn't authorised Kim is savvy enough to understand the Kiwi angst against USA thuggery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it is an opinion it's not defamatory per se (libelous).
Though the statement in this case is actually factual based on the case between MegaUpload and Universal. This is one of the intriguing things in this whole case. Universal got pulled over the coals by the court, all of a sudden there is indictments by the Ham Sandwich bunch against a organisation who had the audacity to tell the emperor he had no clothes on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Though if your about unlawful, meaning civil, then you are correct (or for commercial use under criminal) though if unlawful the onus is on the plaintiff to prove and IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
Now we know where all these bullshit figures of 'loss to the economy' is coming from..
They are counting all these jobs that they think the ISP's etc should be paying for out of their own budgets.
It all makes sense now...
Cant we all just Think of the copyright infringemnt searchers..
/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ewwwwwwwwwwwwww
Bastard! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say It Out Loud
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: from the hard-to-have-good-grammar-if-your-mouth-is-full-of-cock dept
not quite sure though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Campbell Live (the program this interview was given on) is on immediately after the news. it probably gets, oh, rough estimate, half (maybe more these days) of prime time viewers in this country watching it.
most of them are NOT the sort to keep track of these things.
they will, however, generally take exception to injustice and/or foreign abuse of our legal systems etc.
(on another note, it amuses me that nationalism has become left wing ideology here. heh. only in as much as the rightist parties Currently capable of attaining seats in government are globalist/corporatist types, but still.)
should be noted however, that the program and channel this are on are owned by american interests, so it's sort of surprising it was them, and not TV1's equivilant who got it. (mind you, TV1 is government owned. Currently that's the government that allowed/facilitated this mess in the first place. perhaps it would have gone that way under a Labour etc. government. mind you, it'd probably have been a lot less dramatic under a Labour government...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: International Law
basically the US government/corporations need to paint the guy black enough to make him look Worse than them in the public eye to win in that arena here.
they have a bit of an advantage in that the guy only got into the country due to our current government's incredably dubious 'cash for residency' set up (incidently, Kim . com is a resident, not a citizen, of NZ last i checked.) if he'd simply been arrested normally, and they'd dealt with it Properly and By the Book without this corrupt rubbish such as what happend with Megaupload and the files there on, they'd have that one sewn up.
their inability to act in a legal, logical, reasonable, non-corrupt manner has probably destroyed that advantage though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A side issue...
they want your eyeballs for advertising money, i guess.
unless that video is from their site? i can't really tell, but i do know they're set up to be a right pain in the arse to get at the video any way other than via their page (even any attempts to download it with other software will tend to grab the ad at the begining and not the article, for example.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I miss Megaupload
(save, perhaps, if public opinion is loud enough, NZ's government may amend it's law to prevent this nonsense process happening here again... or to make it easier to sneak such things under the public radar...)
if he loses it could easily be the nail in the coffin for the current government (unfortunately, probably not enough to finally kill off the disaster that is the National party so the Conservative Party (actually conservative rather than corporatist, and nationalist rather than globalist) can pick up most of the anti-left votes. then we just need to kill off Labour in favour of the Greens, NZ first, and various other smaller entities and we'll be golden for a generation or two. added bonus: that would be the three parties with clue one how to run an economy, even if that is purely incidental to their other goals.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But no girl is willing to bone him right now.
That's a bad analogy. It would be more accurate to say that lots of women are willing to bone him right now, but only if he pays their pimp.
And, if the guy has sex with a girl that looks like that prostitute, the pimp still demands money.
Now, I'm not saying that the copyright industries are the moral equivalent of pimping... Wait, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
See, here's the other problem that will forever blow your "it's mostly legal" argument out the window: The prosecutors have the logs, and they know who was downloading what. They know that almost all of the traffic was related to infringing material. The fact that most file lockers cannot operate without it should tell you something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bad faith actions that will get megachubby a few years in the clink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
They were previously owned by Canadian company, but now their owners are Australian. No US interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kim Dotcom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Are you saying that because he wants something right now but can't get it legally, he's justified in obtaining it illegally? Via abusing the rights of someone else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(2) it's technically impossible and (3)
Masnick just because you are not able to tie your own shoe laces, does not mean the task is "technically impossible".
technically imcompetent, I can believe... especially consider the level of competence displayed in the "quality" or lack thereof of Techdirt..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
do you understand what a law is ? watching copyright is not a violation of COPYRight, making available COPIES of that copyrighted material is a VIOLATION, and being against the law, is a crime.
You have violated the law, receiving an illegal copy of something that has been copied in breach of copyright law, is 'receiving stolen goods' and 'knowingly participting in a criminal act'. .. both are crimes under common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
or
if you are too stupid to be able to work within the law, you deserve to be imprisoned, or punished.
or
"its too hard to do" is no excuse for breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: (2) it's technically impossible and (3)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue the Ironic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: (2) it's technically impossible and (3)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
Then why are the prosecutors trying to have all the logs and files deleted?
Without corroborating evidence, there's nothing to prove their doctored evidence is inaccurate!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A government for the content industry by the content industry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second issue is they seized and froze all his assets effectively significantly delaying him from building up a legal team... So his fundamental right to retain counsel just vanished because he broke copyright laws?? The seized assets include his house!! Where him, his wife and 3 kids live! ALL THIS BEFORE BEING GIVEN A TRIAL!! Coooommoooonnnn!!!! What's going on here???? :-P How would you like the police to raid and damage your house, take everything from you, then years later (after a lengthy court case), potentially you win and they tell you: "You're innocent and free to go, oh here's your house back, your family can move back in now... Here's your money too!" NICE ONE! Guilty before being proven!!
But the root issue here... What really smells rotten is Copyright Law... It's the model of copyright law that smells like rotten illogical fish... In the internet age, media files, copyrighted or not, are just a commodity.. Dotcom or not, Megaupload or not, there are extremely fast ways to download any kind of content on the net, copyrighted or not... So go ahead and arrest the thousands of people behind thousands of sites that facilitate/host copyrighted media... And arrest the millions of users who use the sites and download the media too! Don't forget the kid in the schoolyard trying to make extra pocket money by selling copyrighted cds/movies! Afterall a crime is a crime! (all things equal, you kill someone and make money vs. You just kill someone, you'll go to jail period).
The Government is way over its head with Copyright Law. Abuse of power! As it has been mentioned elsewhere.. "The Dotcom case is just a civil case in disguise"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ouh yeah!
[ link to this | view in thread ]