Slashdot Mirror
Megaupload Founder Dodges Jail Again; Wife Under Investigation
New submitter xenn writes "The linked article, titled by TVNZ as 'Kim Dotcom bail appeal dismissed, funds released,' somehow doesn't quite capture the drama the lies within... 'Meanwhile, it emerged today that U.S. authorities are investigating Dotcom's pregnant wife, Mona Dotcom, as part of a world-wide sting on Internet piracy. Toohey said she had received a preliminary application from the U.S. indicating that Mona could have been involved in Megaupload.'"
Torrentfreak adds that U.S. attempts to put Kim Dotcom back in jail failed, and he's been granted access to his bank accounts to cover essential expenses (to the tune of $30+k per month).
Given the summary "$30+k", it depends on the value of "k".
If he has a mortgage on his $5 million house that alone will eat into most of that amount. And there are good reasons the fabulously wealthy would have a loan rather than pay cash, namely the fact that once you get to a certain amount of money, using it to generate more money is pretty easy. You'll probably come out better off with a loan with a crazy low interest rate (since you have the cash and income to cover it times 10) and invest the same money in something else (if you make even a 7% profit you come out well ahead).
I think the problem here is not that he's rich and probably of questionable morals, but that there is an imbalance of justice that is being applied. Here, there is a concerted effort to pursue an individual who is key in distributing probably millions of dollars worth in copyrights. Meanwhile, the justice system couldn't give two shits about prosecuting bankers for predatory loan practiced or curtailing insider trading among congress critters. As such, this event doesn't demonstrate one guy getting nailed for doing something wrong but rather one rich group going after a slightly less-rich individual to protect their profits. This activities of the former even extend to the non-rich individuals. Given this, it's hard to be cheerful when justice is not being applied for justice's-sake but rather for moneyed interests.
The problem with your argument is this: you assume that those who see a problem with the distribution of wealth think that we should not reward merit at all.
This is not the case.
What is the case is that the disparity of wealth, when it grows too extreme, does not drive industry; it does not build a middle class, and it rewards existent wealth as opposed to rewarding hard work, diligence and innovation. Especially when so much of it is hoarded in offshore accounts.
An extreme disparity of wealth leads to a third world economy (see also Mexico) and destroys the middle class. And historically, when it gets bad enough, it causes a nation to rip itself apart.
Furthermore, it leads to corruption of democracy, as we've seen in this country. From Citizens United to the "private fundraisers", too much of our system is bought and paid for by the concentration of wealth that we've allowed to develop in the hands of the very few. It warps both the social fabric, and
Are all successful people in the 1% evil? No. Are all of their gains always ill gotten? No. However, the concentration of wealth in this nation, the disparity of income for effort, has grown so extreme that it no longer furthers those things that capitalism is supposed to be good at promoting: hard work, merit, innovation and the rest of the values that it is supposed to drive.
Check your premises.
[...] while changing the rules of society in order to gain more and more and more.
To be fair, rather than changing the rules he just chooses to ignore them, or at the very least interpret them in a way that allows him to make millions of dollars at other people's expense. I completely agree that the current copyright and patent system is broken and unrealistic in a modern world, but that doesn't mean I think people should be able to become multi-millionares by helping people distribute other people's work.
Whats Virginia got to do with it?
No, I don't think so. The desired result has already been achieved -- they have wrecked his business.
All that is happening now is after-the-fact justification for wrecking the business and to avoid accusations that the sole purpose was not to go after a criminal, but to wreck a business that some powerful people did not like.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I might be a bit more sympathetic to their position had they not burned the shop down before even beginning to hold a trial.