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.

[sneakyimp]

I think you missed my point. AT&T and Comcast pay appropriate fees to content providers when they host files for consumer download. These other companies that host the copyrighted material do not. When some guy owns a warehouse that is selling stolen goods, you don't arrest the person who built the road. Likewise, if I own a storage warehouse, you don't arrest me when my customer with locker number #12345 has stolen goods in his locker.

The megaupload case hinges on the incriminating private correspondence of megaupload employees scheming to make copyrighted works available. Read the indictment.

Re:This case is a joke.

[bjourne]

In my days those "fixers" were known as Fairlight and Razor 1911 among others. They were seen as living gods and provided thousands of "fixed" games. None of them got rich on it but did it for fun and fame. The readme files even encouraged you to buy the games they ripped if you liked them.

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.

[10101001 10101001]

Yes, let's see some of the damning evidence (fromArstechnica

For example, in 2007, one of the Megaupload employees sent an e-mail to his peers about users who had received payments. He described one of the uploaders, who got a $100 payment, as "Our old famous number one on MU, still some illegal files but I think he deserves a payment." Another user who got a $300 check was described as having "30849 files, mainly Mp3z, some copyrighted but most of them have a very small number of downloads per file." In another 2007 e-mail, a Megaupload employee wrote that some of the uploaders receiving payments "had very obvious copyrighted files in their account portfolio, but I was rather flexible."

Hmm.. Sounds to me like the employees are saying that most the content is legitimate and hence their (admittedly pitiful compared to what Megaupload itself raked in) payment should still be given. Now, the fact that they were not preemptively taking down content? Well, that seems to only really be an issue because they were stupid enough to look in the first place. I mean, consider Google's relationship with Youtube users. I don't doubt that Google is aware that their users are uploading content and the people with the most views are more likely to have such content. But, they presumably have policy to not actually check, to remain in the legal clear--and this seems rather stupid to me, given it's just another form of willful ignorance to counter the absurd fruit-of-the-poison-tree-like expectations against found pirates/piracy. Having said that, it doesn't sound like actively working up to this point. Until...

In a 2008 incident, a user e-mailed Megaupload and wrote "I've been trying to watch Dexter episodes, but... the sound doesn't match up with the visual." Dotcom forwarded this e-mail to a subordinate, adding "...on many forums people complain that our video / sound are not in sync... We need to solve this asap!" Dexter, of course, is a popular, copyrighted television show.

And this is the damning part of it. Up until this, it could be claimed to be negligence or willful ignorance (as it sounds like employees were merely making educated guesses, not legal deductions, about content) which at least possibly could be legally excused. This just makes it sound like Megaupload was specifically working with pirates to pirate a show. And as much as Dotcom might have wanted it (as much as I presume Youtube's founders did until enough user content was added to usurp it) to attract enough users to form a community (as piracy/porn could be said to be the seeds of many nascent technologies/systems), this seems to go well beyond that into the realm of trying to make Megaupload *the* pirate system.

Of course, in the end, it'll probably take a bit more context to be actually sure that this isn't just twisting of an email. I mean, perhaps the complaint is merely that Megaupload was having fidelity issues with any video being copied to its service? That doesn't seem likely (AFAIK, there was no reencoding like Youtube), but perhaps there's another interpretation/explanation? I seriously don't see it, though.

Re:This case is a joke.

[SteveFoerster]

The dude's name is "Kim Dotcom" and you're focused on the "Kim" part?

Re:This case is a joke.

[ThatsMyNick]

It is only 1.5 times more common for Kim to female than male, according to gpeters. So if you take hundred Kims, 40 of them are male.

Re:This case is a joke.

[sentientbeing]

The US seized his TLD. Now hes just Kim

Re:This case is a joke.

[lightknight]

But Kim ain't a girl! (Firefly)

Re:This case is a joke.

[InspectorGadget1964]

No. Intel is an US company. Chances are everyone in Skull and Bones has shares on it, so the US government wouldn't act against it.

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.

[wmbetts]

I used it for legal files. Several people I know did the same. I'm pretty sure my small group of people weren't the only ones either.

Re:This case is a joke.

[fredprado]

The proof that these allegations are not true is that the DoJ doesn't have a case even though they blatantly violated due process and ignored any law that inconvenienced them to get the "evidences".

Re:This case is a joke.

[quenda]

It is only 1.5 times more common for Kim to female than male, according to gpeters. So if you take hundred Kims, 40 of them are male.

But most of them are Korean, so it can be hard to tell.

Re:This case is a joke.

[ThatsMyNick]

I am a film buff. I easily watch 3 movies a week (if I have good company it can be more). I have a Neflix account and a hulu+ account, apart from premium cable. Guess what? I still have to resort to not so legal means to get content. Netflix and hulu online collection suck. I am not even taking about new releases (which I would gladly watch at a movie theater), but movies that were released 20-30 years ago. I sometimes look it up at the local library, sometimes queue it up on Netflix-dvd, and about 60% of the time download the damn thing, get some beer from the fridge and start watching the movie. And my film buff friends abroad, easily get 90% of their content from not so legal means.
 
Just open it up, already, I would gladly pay for content. But I guess MAFIAA, does not want my money.

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.

[interkin3tic]

As an American, I think a case could be made for giving NZ control of our DOJ.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are too much obsessed with that country called "United States"...

Re:This case is a joke.

[interkin3tic]

So if you take hundred Kims, 40 of them are male.

Sounds like a party.

Re:This case is a joke.

[xs650]

That's not the long term solution, the Kiwis need to man up and install a government that puts NZ sovereignty first.

Re:This case is a joke.

[ozmanjusri]

the Kiwis need to man up

No doubt. In fact, they're probably feeling a bit sheepish right now.

Re:This case is a joke.

[nbauman]

If you've ever studied the law, then you know there are lots of cases in which someone seemed clearly guilty -- according to the prosecutor's indictment -- and at the end turned out to be completely innocent. Sometimes they wind up in jail before the facts come out.

When prosecutors write memos to themselves, they give the strengths and weaknesses of their case. When they write indictments, and when they present their case to the grand jury, they leave out the weaknesses.

Happens all the time. That's why we have jury trials. That's why we have a Bill of Rights.

Oh, Kim Dotcom hasn't had a jury trial yet, hasn't had a chance to see the evidence against him, and hasn't had a chance to defend himself against it? Then how do you know he's guilty?

In fact, why is it right for them to confiscate all his assets, even the money that he needs to pay his lawyers to defend him against these charges?

Re:This case is a joke.

[nbauman]

It claims.

He hasn't had a chance to defend himself. He can't defend himself, because they confiscated the money he needs to pay his lawyers to defend him.

There are lots of cases where prosecutors claimed someone was guilty, and he turned out to be innocent. In fact, there are lots of cases in which prosecutors (illegally) withheld evidence that would have proved the defendant was guilty.

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.

[BanHammor]

I believe that you are looking for Jayne. Also, I can kill you with my brain.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kimberly is a girls name. Kimburly is a mans name.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Tom]

The dude's name is actually Kim Schmitz. But that didn't sound sexy enough for the sleazebag, so he went by several alias names over the years, partially to cover his identity (he was convicted of computer fraud for the first time in 1998). He legally changed his name to "Dotcom", but I personally disregard such clear and obvious publicity stunts.

He's a career criminal, and even back then he was disdained in his original german hacker scene. Leaving Germany was partially because he couldn't fuck people over here anymore, pretty much everyone who was anyone knew not to work with him.

He is one of those assholes who give all of us a bad name. He is a criminal, a crook, a scammer. If you wonder why normal people think that we are all anti-social half-criminals, Kim is part of the answer.

Re:This case is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is a fair 'stupidity tax'. As a Kiwi, I feel we should be putting more pressure on our government to make the police a public resource rather than a government/foreign resource. It's our own fault, it is actually very easy to change governments in New Zealand. We have full elections every three years, and many parties which actually DO have a say. E.g. our 'right wing' government, despite being a majority government, actually makes a lot of concessions all of the Green Party, the Maori (indigenous) Party, Act (a scary right wing party). If we made our voice heard, the government can and will listen.

Also, it is impossible for any corporation to give any significant bribe through 'campaign contributions'. If our government does anything wrong, it is our own fault, and I don't think the US owes us a penny.

Re:This case is a joke.

[aaaaaaargh!]

He legally changed his name to "Dotcom", but I personally disregard such clear and obvious publicity stunts.

I personally think it's funny. Anyway, thanks a lot for letting thousands of /. readers know about your opinion, no matter how unimportant or irrelevant it might be.

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.

Re:This case is a joke.

[metacell]

Perhaps because MegaUpload had started to hire artists and was planning to release original music downloads, thus putting them into direct competition with the traditional music companies.

That would also explain why the music companies abused the DMCA system to remove MegaUpload's ad from YouTube, even though it contained no infringing material. (YouTube)

Re:This case is a joke.

[BeanThere]

People are rooting for 'due process' (which he has been denied, and he has been the target of an illegal home invasion), and you are confusing rooting for justice, with rooting for the individual, an old but still common mistake.

If you or I conduct an illegal home invasion, we rightly get put in jail, so I'm wondering (/sarcasm) who will go to jail for this illegal home invasion. I'm guessing 'nobody' - what we are tired of is officials being above the law, i.e. we live by one set of laws, and they live above those laws.

Re:This case is a joke.

[BeanThere]

It's not really 'sovereignty' that ought to be put first, per se --- it's universal principles of justice, like due process, and not conducting illegal home invasions (i.e. home invasion without a proper warrant, etc.) - regardless of who asks for them. Sovereignty is a bit of a red herring issue, in that it distracts from the more real underlying principles.

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.

Re:More like Kim Dot-Scum

[djlowe]

He is a convicted felon, thief, and con artist. Not someone to admire.

Who said anything about admiring him? Even if your assessment is true, he's still entitled to due process under US law, by definition, from "Yick Wo v. Hopkins", 1886, as quoted in

http://open.salon.com/blog/scottstarr/2010/03/20/despite_recent_demagoguery_non-citizens_also_have_constitut

Most relevant part quoted here:

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: âNor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.â(TM) These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws⦠The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.â

The truth of the matter is, this is actually the best approach he could take, and one that he SHOULD take. By US law, his assets MUST be unfrozen at this point, because he has yet to be found guilty of any crime by due process of US law.

The real question is: Will the US Federal Government actually OBEY their own laws as interpreted by SCOTUS?

Somehow, I doubt it. There's too much money at stake, potentially, and there's no way that our Facist Overlords in the US are ever going to permit this: Crippling him by freezing his accounts worldwide, regardless of due process, gives them leverage, and there's NO way that they'll give up that advantage without a huge fight.

Look for the US Federal Government to try to turn this into a RICO case, to keep his assets frozen, by arguing that this is a case of "organized crime", in response to this.

You heard it here first.

Cynically,

dj br

Re:Your opinion is a joke

[sneakyimp]

You should read the arstechnica article Iinked. It offers a different slant that you might find informative (and much more legally sound than our armchair opinions):

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/legal-experts-say-megaupload-faces-long-odds/

Re:Your opinion is a joke

[strikethree]

Did you read the emails in question? If not, why do you believe the characterizations of the emails made by people who intend to prosecute him?

Assuming the characterizations are accurate, were any of them written by the owner? Do they mention him in such as a way as to indicate that he knew what this "group of people" who worked for him knew? Why aren't the people who actually wrote the emails being charged?

From my point of view, it looks like he is probably guilty. He needs to convicted on proof though, not on what it looks like. Are we really going to convict this guy before he has his day in court? If he gets out of having to face his day in court, it is only due to incompetence on the part of the people prosecuting the supposed crime.

Re:Your opinion is a joke

[Hatta]

That is written based on the indictment. Why would you trust that anything in this indictment is factual?