60 Minutes vs. Vice On Kim Dotcom -- Neither One Goes Deep Into The Issues
from the two-sides dept
A few months back I spent quite some time on the phone with two producers from 60 Minutes concerning a story they were planning on Kim Dotcom. They insisted that it was going to be a more nuanced piece than the usual media coverage portraying Dotcom as the "Dr. Evil" of the copyright industry. The episode finally aired this past weekend, and to the show's credit, it definitely does take a somewhat more nuanced look at Dotcom. An interview with Dotcom is the centerpiece of the story, which certainly allows him to express some of his position. However, it also allows a number of highly questionable statements from the FBI and others, including saying that the $500 million that Megaupload made is "lost revenue" from Hollywood. However, when Dotcom himself makes a claim about being a businessman, the reporter openly laughs at him and points out the fact that decades ago, Dotcom claimed to have hacked into government computers. Much of the piece (and the extra material on the web) focuses almost exclusively on the fact that he lives in a mansion (they conveniently leave out that it's rented). It's not a completely one-sided portrait, but it hardly gets at any of the underlying legal issues that are at the core of the case. Basically, every time they suggest any of the legal issues, it's almost immediately followed up by "But look at this amazing house!"I can understand the "media" appeal of both stories. Dotcom and his persona are entertaining. But unfortunately, it seems like that too often is used to obscure the underlying issues which are incredibly important and serious.
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: 60 minutes, kim dotcom, vice
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Some quick questions...
First quick question.How was that revenue lost by "Hollywood" if they don't have anything even remotelly similar to what Megaupload presented?
Another quick one.
If they see that "One" guy can make that much "alleged" profit, why don't they compete with him?
Last one.
He's a CEO of a successful company, can we do a comparison of the houses (and life style) of other persons in similar positions? Or is anyone not shocked how Wall Street sharks live?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
just perfect for TechDirt then..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time, basically. It's one of those things that's on the list of "yes, I should do this, and yes, I want to do this..." but is always limited by... "shit, I have barely enough time as is, and that would take up a ton of time."
I'm still hoping we'll get to start doing something around that this year... at some point. Hopefully. Maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA evil does not mean Kim Dotcom isn't a criminal TOO.
Mike appears to believe that the sole test for morally acceptable is whether it brings income without being jailed.
13:23:47[o-530-2]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kim wants to be a martyr
Kim is here not for the music, not for free speech, Kim is here for the money, plain and simple. His personal wealth building no matter the cost to others makes him the perfect scapegoat, because he doesn't try to be discrete about it.
It doesn't help either that he has been found guilty of financial crimes twice (once in Hong Kong, and the big one in Germany), which gives him very little crediblity when it comes to the issues at hand.
The piracy / anti-copyright / free speech types would be good to distance themselves from the megalomaniac, he's a boat anchor that is likely to sink all of you. He's a Thomas, a Tennebaum, a Fung... someone who will fight too long, and end up making caselaw against your causes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, your side is staffed with heroes and martyrs, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kim wants to be a martyr
Plenty of poor people are doing it just for the art, or to make a statement. There's no business model in that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kim wants to be a martyr
First, don't put "supports piracy" and "is for copyright reform" in the same bucket. It's two entire separate groups of people. Second, in what sense has Kim become a spokesman for either group at all?
Yes, and why is this remotely relevant? Nobody's saying that Kim is some kind of paragon of virtue.
Again, how is this relevant? I don't see how it matter one whit whether or not Kim has any credibility on copyright issues.
Again with your highly questionable groupings. Regardless, for people who are pro-justice, ignoring the fact that Kim was abused by law enforcement, apparently wrongly accused, and subjected to egregious injustice would be extremely unethical.
Everyone should be treated with justice, even complete douchebags. To defend someone against injustice in no way implies approval of the person you're defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You expected different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course you go to bat for the MPAA for all of their immoral acts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seems like what you are implying, that any illegal action justifies any other illegal actions, do you honestly believe that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually no, what you're saying is that the falsely-labelled "illegal actions" of Dotcom justify the illegal and immoral acts of terrorism deployed against him by the RIAA/MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because as of right now, is all hearsay there is no proof of any wrong doing, there is nothing and everything that comes up in public makes law enforcement look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And what illegal actions would those be? As near as I can tell, based on what the DOJ has to say, he didn't break any laws whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to mention a post by an industry shill(see, I can make random accusations too!) hardly carries much weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did make a comment, but it's being held for moderation.
Mike, can you please deal with this idiot? This is the sort of trolling and baiting you DON'T want on your site, you can see I am not the problem here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131220/00054025643/nz-customs-refuses-to-answer-questions-after- revelations-illegal-orders-to-give-fbi-info-kim-dotcom-brownie-points.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/a rticles/20130830/02593924364/police-admit-that-nz-spy-agency-illegally-spied-kim-dotcom-arent-going- to-do-anything-about-it.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130823/09375924294/did-new-zealand-s pooks-tap-into-prism-to-spy-dotcom.shtml
There's three citations, boy.
Now stop whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This from the boy with three citations right in front of him...
Hilarious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The view shared by many is that KDC is trying to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. Even a casual perusal of MU and the business plan KDC declares was pursued from the get go...a cyber locker...strains credulity. Yes, cyberlockers, which to my knowledge were not ubiquitous at the time of MU's launch causes me to wonder just how he proposed to run a profit center. Premium accounts, payments to account holders based upon downloads, etc. do suggest an income stream to the site, and that "free" was the equivalent of what we know as bait and switch. I happen to believe that MU was intended from the get go to solicit uploads of widely sought after content, and that content in the vast majority of instances was subject to copyright. All his theatrics since leaving on an extended vacation in NZ looks like the jig is up and its time to get out of Dodge. Too bad that a person with his computer literacy and talent decided to pursue a path of likely wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright is automatic so everything on there would have been covered by copyright.
You seem to gloss over the fact that the majority of the files hosted on there were perfectly legal uploads.
Yes there were a small number of files (like TV, Film, and music) that were downloaded in breach of copyright but MU followed the DMCA and took down the links to these files when requested as required by law.
Everything he did was perfectly legal and that is why the US is having a hard time pinning anything on him. The US has gone as far as to release their evidence so that Civil cases can be brought up because there is no criminal case to answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Citation please...and from an objective source neither pro nor con on the relevant issues.
Even assuming your comment is correct, it must be understood that the charges leveled against KDC as they pertain to copyright are directed to his alleged active encouragement of copyright infringement and the profiting from same, as well as his paying lip service to notifications under the DMCA.
BTW, copyright being automatic is a feature with which I am not exactly thrilled, but not everything is subject to the law since while the bar is too low to my liking an item must still be an original work of authorship for copyright to attach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The burden of proof.
Until then, all of these allegations of evil and wrongdoing are just slander.
You are trying to crucify him in the press because you can't seem to do it by any legitimate means.
There's more to the law than just the copyright act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The burden of proof.
Hmmm. Seems like these allegations of evil and wrongdoing are NOT slander until such time that's been adjudicated by a court. Or does it only work that way for corpulent grifters?
What a transparent douchenozzle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The burden of proof.
See how that works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
once they shipped in the oversized scales that is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So do it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So do it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some quick questions...
How was that revenue lost by "Hollywood" if they don't have anything even remotelly similar to what Megaupload presented?
Another quick one.
If they see that "One" guy can make that much "alleged" profit, why don't they compete with him?
Last one.
He's a CEO of a successful company, can we do a comparison of the houses (and life style) of other persons in similar positions? Or is anyone not shocked how Wall Street sharks live?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some quick questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some quick questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some quick questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some quick questions...
and, you consider crime ok if the victims are still able to make money by legal activities?
I also find very funny "some of his files are legal" therefore it does not matter that some are not !!!!!
"if you live in a big house, how is it possible you are doing anything wrong!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some quick questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nowhere in any of the plethora of reports I have read about the proceedings in NZ have I noted anything even remotely suggesting that the USG has engaged in an activity that runs afoul of NZ law. One judge did admonish the NZ authorities that they should attempt to retrieve some of what was shared with the USG because of alleged improprieties by such authorities, but by no means can this be interpreted as a declaration that the USG having violated any NZ law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here, you can catch up on your own time: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=kim+dotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not trying to move any goalposts, but simply to point out to those who may happen to read all comments to the article that the USG has not done anything adjudicated as wrong in NZ, and somehow trying to say something to the effect "they browbeat/coerce/etc. NZ authorities" is unsubstantiated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cough..the pirate bay..cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
once NSA stops sifting through your meta-data, so will Google, Masnick and everyone else !
If a crime is still being committed by someone else (as well) then all crimes of that nature should be completely ignored!
I love the 'legal' arguments from the TD fans!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the majority of the people are breaking the law, it is a bad law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinion vs fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So sayeth Mini-Me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 years later
All hail the new improved Megaupload
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kim dotcome vs youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]