Whistleblowers Who Broke Into The FBI 43 Years Ago Finally Reveal Themselves

60 Minutes vs. Vice On Kim Dotcom -- Neither One Goes Deep Into The Issues

from the two-sides dept

Tue, Jan 7th 2014 4:02pm — Mike Masnick

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!"

Meanwhile, a day or two before the 60 Minutes episode aired, Vice released its own interview with Kim Dotcom which is worth watching as well. It covers some of the same stuff from a very different perspective, of course. A lot more of a focus on video gaming, music and such. Unfortunately, it too, is a bit weak on the legal issues. In the second half of that video (the first half is basically just wandering around the house), Dotcom finally is given some chance to weigh in on legal and policy issues -- things that never come up at all in the 60 Minutes interview. Dotcom focuses much more on the NSA revelations, discussing how it's had such a negative impact on the tech industry. Of course, right after Dotcom goes into discussing all these points, the reporter immediately jumps to asking him about the photos of Dotcom on a private plane and a yacht. Also, way too much of the video focuses on the reporter wanting to sing in one of Dotcom's songs. Really? In the end, both of them are kind of different generations doing the same thing: a story on Kim Dotcom that focuses on "Gee, look at his massive house, and this crazy guy," rather than really presenting the key issues concerning copyright, surveillance, privacy, internet freedom -- and the policies behind all of the laws related to those things. That's too bad, as it's really a lost opportunity for both media properties. Vice at least lets Dotcom raise some of these issues, but pays almost no attention to them.

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

67 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

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?

—Anonymous Coward

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous, 7 Jan 2014 @ 4:53pm

So what you want, "Deep Inside Kim Dotcom"? That would be just freaking wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:07pm

60 Minutes has pretty much lost all credibility but that VICE video was just a fluff piece. More a Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous, not a shred of journalism in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:13pm

Mike, any reason why you don't do weekly podcasts/interviews?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:18pm

Re:
Mike, any reason why you don't do weekly podcasts/interviews?

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:24pm

NSA evil does not mean Kim Dotcom isn't a criminal TOO.
FIVE HUNDRED MILLION! HOLY COW! I'll reference this piece next time you LIE that there's no mony in even indiret copyright infringement!
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 thread ]
Just Sayin', 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:25pm

Kim wants to be a martyr
The problem for anyone who supports piracy or who is against copyright is that Kim has become your unofficial spokesman, and he's not a very good example.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:35pm

Vice reporting can sometimes be good, but this was a shallow puff piece. They didn't even mention that MEGA's encryption is next to worthless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Good (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:47pm

You expected different?
This is the same media source that is basically a PR outlet for the NSA. You expected something impartial on Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Just Sayin', 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:51pm

Of course Masnick will write about this; he's a pirate and an apologist and will hide, censor and block any opposition calling him out on this. This post will be hidden for 24 hours while his attack dogs plan a useless rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:07pm

Re:
Yawn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:13pm

Re:
Of course you are going to go to bat for all of the illegal actions committed by the US government.

Of course you go to bat for the MPAA for all of their immoral acts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:31pm

Re:
As the saying goes 'Citation needed'.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:43pm

That One Guy whines: "As the saying goes 'Citation needed'. "

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 thread ]
Just Sayin', 7 Jan 2014 @ 7:07pm

Re:
Oh, this game again? Sorry guys, that wasn't me posting, just the same guy who uses other people's accounts and tries to discredit posters he doesn't like.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 7:19pm

Re:
You don't know what a citation is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 9:15pm

Correction. The $500M was not reported as unqualified as you state. Instead it was qualified by use of the term "alleged".

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 9:54pm

"Dotcom finally is given some chance to weigh in on legal and policy issues"

once they shipped in the oversized scales that is....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 9:56pm

Re:
". More a Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous, not a shred of journalism in it."

just perfect for TechDirt then..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:01pm

Re: Re:
so are you saying Masnick is going to bat for the illegal actions committed by Dotcom?

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:03pm

Re: Re:
Masnick is a 'industry shill' as well you know! but your right, it does not carry much weight. Not like Dotfatpig.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:21pm

So do it right.
Send the Two Tim's�� to interview Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:49pm

Re:
I see three citations dealing with illegalities on the part of those going after Dotcom, but I don't see any proof of Mike being a 'pirate and an apologist' as you (always and constantly) claim, and as for the rest of your comment AJ(nice name change by the way, pity you out yourself so easily by your actions here), I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you don't want to be sent to time out, stop acting like a child.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:53pm

Re:
Welcome to modern journalism! Where everyone says nothing and is trying to sell you a bridge in Hawai'i!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 11:11pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 12:34am

Re: Re: Re:
No, that's what you're saying.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:24am

Re: Re: Re:
AJ I hate to repeat this but 'Citation required'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:30am

Re:
"and that content in the vast majority of instances was subject to copyright"

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 thread ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:53am

Re: So do it right.
Oh yes, please. PLEASE. I'll help fund a kickstarter campaign to support the costs if needed. Should be both hilarious and informative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:55am

Re: Some quick questions...
When the propaganda machine wants you destroyed, common sense gets thrown out of the window. And unfortunately an uncomfortable lot of people still buy what's spoon fed to their brains.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 2:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Alleged illegal acts you mean right?
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 2:23am

Re: Re: Re:
You was so certain that Dotcom was going to jail that you bragged all over on Techdirt.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 3:44am

Chicken Mike! Chicken Mike!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 3:59am

the stories were obviously done like they were intentionally. anything to make Dotcom look as bad ass as possible being the main aim. i very much doubt that these shows weren't 'vetted' to some extent as well. there's no way either that the DoJ, having screwed up as royally as it has, having broken the law and judges orders itself to simply 'get the guy as a favour to Hollywood and the entertainment industries', because the heads of the industries are best sponsoring buddies of some in Congress and Mr Head Honcho himself, and that's without the relationship between them and the security agencies (cant help laughing when i say that)!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 4:50am

By killing MU they've put an end to piracy 100%!

cough..the pirate bay..cough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ari Kanari, 8 Jan 2014 @ 6:44am

Opinion vs fact
Opinion driven news coverage instead of fact driven. That�s how American news networks and programs operate these days. They bend, omit or selectively use facts in their stories to suit their opinion. And in case it doesn't, they probably won't cover the story at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 7:02am

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.

So sayeth Mini-Me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 7:23am

Re: Re:
"You seem to gloss over the fact that the majority of the files hosted on there were perfectly legal uploads."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 7:27am

Re:
Just curious. What law has the USG "broken"? I am not aware of any US law, and merely asking for information from NZ authorities is quite legal. If NZ authorities do not follow NZ law, that is a matter between the NZ authorities and the NZ courts. The fact that some possible tainted information wended its way from NZ to the US is generally irrelevant under US law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy2020 (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 8:56am

I'd rather see 60 minutes do pieces on the houses of the CEOs of the banks that took bailouts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 8 Jan 2014 @ 9:49am

The burden of proof.
We don't have to cite anything. Under our founding principles, Dotcom deserves the benefit of the doubt. We should treat him as completely innocent until such time as the state can prove a case against him "beyond a reasonable doubt".

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 10:06am

Re: Re:
"You don't know what a citation is."

This from the boy with three citations right in front of him...
Hilarious!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 11:59am

Re: The burden of proof.
We should treat him as completely innocent until such time as the state can prove a case against him "beyond a reasonable doubt". Until then, all of these allegations of evil and wrongdoing are just slander.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Re:
for the illegal actions committed by Dotcom?

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:19pm

Re:
Naw. Such a piece would be carefully edited to show those houses in the humblest way possible, while they wen ton and on about how those CEOs are just regular guys like you and me who were victimized by circumstances beyond their control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:21pm

Re: Some quick questions...
wow you really don't understand the law, so according to you crime is ok as long as you profit from it ?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: Some quick questions...
sounds like TD talking about NSA, same argument applies !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:31pm

Re:
By killing NSA they've put an end to all spying 100% !

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:31pm

Re: Re: Some quick questions...
You've got an extraordinary talent for putting loaded words people never said into their mouths.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 1:32pm

Re:
and TD does not do the exact same? bend, omit and selectively use facts in their stories to suit their opinion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Some quick questions...
Examples, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re:
If the USG coerces the NZ government into breaking NZ law (as appears to be the case), then it's more than a matter between the NZG and the courts. We also have to address misdeed of the USG.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
Coerces? Asking for the sharing of information gained during investigations is not at all unusual, so it is a bit difficult to equate asking with coercing.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said the USG violated NZ law. I said the USG coerced the NZ government into taking actions that they shouldn't have taken. This was the opinion of the NZ court system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 6:35pm

2 years later
Megaupload is dead
All hail the new improved Megaupload
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 7:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you can refresh my recollection because I do not recall anything contained in a NZ court opinion that can reasonably be understood as alleging USG coercion of NZ authorities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 9 Jan 2014 @ 5:02am

kim dotcome vs youtube
now if they are going after this guy for the Hollywood BS they need to also go after Youtube google and anyone else that allows anyone to upload anything cause I see plenty of movies on youtube the only difference is commercials. maybe im wrong on something but they should be going after the people that upload the videos and music. but you have 12 billion some files transferred how do you keep track of everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 6:18am

Re: Re:
Oh look, someone learned how to use a proxy. You filthy pirate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 6:20am

Re:
And you've got who? John Steele? Mitch Bainwol? Chris Dodd?

Yeah, your side is staffed with heroes and martyrs, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 6:32am

I understand that while in legal limbo KDC is close to signing a contract with the company associated with Jenny Craig. Talk about an impressive opportunity for before and after photos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 10:36am

Re: Kim wants to be a martyr
The fact that he's all about money is a good thing. If he can get filthy rich from Megaupload, then Hollywood can get filthy rich the same way. He's demonstrating how it's done. The fact that Hollywood refuses to acknowledge this (or more likely, is unable to because of contractual obligations) is the reason they are seen as dinosaurs.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 10:41am

Re: Kim wants to be a martyr
You're talking pure nonsense.

The problem for anyone who supports piracy or who is against copyright is that Kim has become your unofficial spokesman, and he's not a very good example.

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?

Kim is here not for the music, not for free speech, Kim is here for the money, plain and simple.

Yes, and why is this remotely relevant? Nobody's saying that Kim is some kind of paragon of virtue.

which gives him very little crediblity when it comes to the issues at hand.

Again, how is this relevant? I don't see how it matter one whit whether or not Kim has any credibility on copyright issues.

The piracy / anti-copyright / free speech types would be good to distance themselves from the megalomaniac

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 10:45am

Re: Re: Re:
What's hilarious is that all three of those citations support That One Guy, not Just Sayin', so the AC has done the opposite of what he intended.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 10:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's with the weird qualifier of "contained in a NZ court opinion"? That's moving the goalposts, right there.

Here, you can catch up on your own time: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=kim+dotcom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it is not at all weird. No US court has told the USG "you done broke the law by your dealings with those in NZ", and no NZ court has done likewise.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2014 @ 1:12pm

" � 2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved."

fuck it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2014 @ 11:10pm

Re: Re: The burden of proof.
The difference is where the burden of proof lies. He can claim slander, and they must prove their statements true. If they cannot, then they are guilty of the civil infraction of slander.

See how that works?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 14 Jan 2014 @ 2:55am

Re: Re:
"If a crime is still being committed by someone else (as well) then all crimes of that nature should be completely ignored!"

If the majority of the people are breaking the law, it is a bad law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]