Kim Dotcom Offers the DoJ a Deal

Master Moose sends this quote from Stuff.co.nz: "Kim Dotcom claims the United States criminal case against him is collapsing but he is offering to go there without extradition provided federal authorities unfreeze his millions of dollars. In a now hallmark style, he made the offer on Twitter. 'Hey DOJ, we will go to the US,' he tweeted, 'No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers & living expenses.' In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter Dotcom says the department knows it does not have a case. 'If they are forced to provide discovery, then there will be no extradition. That's why they don't want to provide discovery. If they had a case, they would not need to hide what they have.'"

Comments

This case is a joke.

[Wakko Warner]

The US should cut its losses, give the dude his servers and money back, and go after some actual criminals. This is just pathetic.

Re:This case is a joke.

[linatux]

I think they should also repay what this has cost the NZ taxpayers.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up, youtube...

Re:This case is a joke.

[ColaMan]

when he is neither the sharer, the viewer, nor the author.

He's the "fixer". He gets you what you want, because he knows someone who has it and can arrange delivery without fuss and bother on your part.This is a perfectly legit role to have in the scheme of things.

Re:This case is a joke.

[steelfood]

I think they should pay the host for the expenses of keeping the data for the period that they've frozen Kim Dotcom's accounts.

As such, I believe they're just stalling for time so that the host and/or Kim himself (and any other of his associates) goes bankrupt.

Re:This case is a joke.

[ThatsMyNick]

The service was shut down in January when authorities in New Zealand raided Dotcom's $24 million compound in Coatesville, a small town not far from Auckland.

So basically, this guy bought a $24 million house by selling ad space and premium accounts to media that he neither made, nor owned, nor invested in, nor had a legal right (as dubious as those may be) to distribute? I get that you can't stop people from sharing, but anyone can see the negative repercussions of people making millions of dollars off of the transaction, when he is neither the sharer, the viewer, nor the author. He's a middleman and this money was ill-gotten; he's happy to play the victim to you guys but it's not about your right to copy, not remotely. It's about his right to make money off copying.

Yeah this has to be stopped. Not be prosecuting and harassing Kim Dotcom (which would do nothing other than turn him into a hero), but by providing legal means of getting media when needed. This is about MAFIAA getting its revenge, not about justice, or about preventing file sharing.

It's really no different than someone pulling code from the Linux kernel and using it in a closed-source commercial product: the author has rights, and the distributor violated those rights because it was profitable.

How often does that happen? And does the linux community use a scorch earth policy to prevent linux code from being used elsewhere? I doubt that.

(And yes I know Megaupload had legitimate uses, if you think that's why it managed to cleared over $100 million in ad and subscription fees in its lifetime from legitimate, author-sourced file distro, you're hopelessly naive.)

Er, he made money from legitimate filesharing. There is a difference if you think about it.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Darkness404]

So? What about people selling CD burners? VHS recorders?

Kim Dotcom simply provided a service that could be used both "legally" and "illegally" and being a good provider of a service made money. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, the people suing him (US department of "justice") obtained their vast wealth through theft of property, and fraud.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, YouTube was the Napster protection scam except with video. "Psst. Pay us money and we'll stop our users from ripping you off."

Of course, the key difference is that YouTube was financed by top silicon valley VC and purchased by blue-chip "Do No Evil" Google, so they got away with it. If Youtube was run by 'Kim Dotcom' and the 'Mega-Conspiracy', it's kneecaps would have been taken-out just like Napster's were.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Copyright infringement is not theft.

2. He facilitates criminal activity the same way as power companies and isp facilitate criminal activity. It's just easier to pin on him.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Dahamma]

If the New Zealand government didn't want to pay for their part in it they shouldn't have TAKEN part in it...

Re:This case is a joke.

[djnanite]

Legal means for getting media when needed? Like iTunes...

Has only a limited range of choice in New Zealand.

Netflix

Not available in New Zealand.

Hulu

Not available in New Zealand.

AmazonMp3

Not available in New Zealand.

Amazon

Will not ship DVDs or CDs to New Zealand.

paid Pandora

Not available in New Zealand.

and any other of a plethora of easy to use and economical means of legally "getting media"?

Tell me more about this 'plethora' of legally accessible media in New Zealand. Sounds like Kim Dotcom was providing a service where there is demand, but no supply.

Re:This case is a joke.

[hjf]

Your point is stupid.

Simply because it assumes you can get something elsewhere. Point is: you can't, just because MAFIAA doesn't want you to. Why isn't there a service where you can get just everything? Why does it have to be so complicated, "licensing", "distribution rights", and a lot of other BULLSHIT, like "region coding" on DVDs. Why do I, down here in Argentina, have to wait several months for a DVD release, while someone in the US got it long before? What's the point? Money talks, and the price of the DVD here is pretty much the same down here than over there. So the "people will order from other countries to pay less" argument doesn't apply either.

Here's the thing: I want to watch that movie now. I know it's out in the US. I have the money. Where's my movie? "You have to wait". Fuck that shit, I'll get it elsewhere.

Really, you are just playing Hollywood's game, and in that game, you'll always be their bitch.

Re:This case is a joke.

[daver00]

He's a career criminal, and even back then he was disdained in his original german hacker scene.

This does not exempt him from due process. If the US DOJ fucked up their case and have no legal grounds to continue what they are doing, then the fact that this guy is dodgey has no relevance to the situation.

Re:This case is a joke.

[metacell]

YouTube was established and still deals mostly in uploads shared by their creators. Their defense against charges of copyright infringement has been to remove infringing material as it is pointed out to them. Megaupload's response has been open defiance and taunting.

That's not what I read. When MegaUpload's received take-down requests from American companies, they've removed the infringing links on American servers, but let them remain on servers in other countries, which is entirely correct of them, since copyright laws are different in different countries.

For example, here in Sweden, I'm allowed to upload my legally purchased film or music album (format-shifting) and then share it with a close circle of friends. In some countries, it's legal to copy from anyone for private use. I'd be pretty annoyed if my (legal) copy of a film or album disappeared from the servers just because an American uploaded the same file illegally.

Needless to say, the American media companies didn't like this. They want American law to apply all over the world.

When several persons uploaded the same (identical) file, MegaUpload produced different links to the same copy of the file (de-duplication). When they received take-down requests, they only removed the links which were included in the take-down request, and let the file and the other links remain. Again, this is correct of them, since the same file may be uploaded illegally by some users and legally by others.

This isn't good versus evil

[Rogerborg]

It's a bunch of fat worthless leeches trying to kill a tick that's fastened on to them

There's no good guy here, it's just parasites vying to see who has the biggest stomach. If only there's a way that they can all lose.

Re:This isn't good versus evil

[steelfood]

Yeah, but if Kim Dotcom loses, a lot of legitimate data whom the copyright holders themselves uploaded to the service (including files the U.S. military uploaded) gets lost as well.

They've effectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And I imagine they've pissed off more people domestic and international than they can imagine. This is exactly the kind of behavior we've all come to expect from decades of granting the federal government ever-increasing powers to control and limit the freedoms of the individual, whether these are U.S. citizens or not. It is also only the beginning of what's to come if we as a people don't make a stand.

Re:More like Kim Dot-Scum

[Darkness404]

So what? He provided a good service to millions. A company has very little to do with the personality of the creators. A good product is a good product even if it was created by someone you wouldn't admire.

Re:Your opinion is a joke

[AK Marc]

The seizures of servers were not for evidence, but for punishment. Punitive seizures is one of the reasons the Constitution required proper warrants. The US no longer follows its own laws (Constitution), but requires everyone else follow its laws.

And there's nothing to say that it couldn't be spun that they knew the US was unreasonable (as proven so far in this case) and they knew they had *some* infringing material, so they looked into prudent defensive measures. What they *should* have done is to use a lawyer as a remailer service to discuss everything, then even if the emails are seized, they could not be used. A few emails out of context indicating they knew infringing material was shared on the Internet doesn't prove they created the service for the purpose of infringing or anything else that *might* be illegal in the US (and almost nowhere else). He didn't publish or distribute anything. It's akin to suing the makers of trash cans for terrorism if a terrorist puts a bomb in them, as that's a known attack vector and they still make trash cans for profit that could be used against the US.