Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kim Dotcom Offers the DoJ a Deal

Posted by Soulskill on from the bearding-the-lion-in-his-den dept.

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.'"

22 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. This case is a joke. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:This case is a joke. by linatux · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:This case is a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Next up, youtube...

    3. Re:This case is a joke. by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:This case is a joke. by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:This case is a joke. by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:This case is a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:This case is a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:This case is a joke. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    9. Re:This case is a joke. by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Funny

      The US seized his TLD. Now hes just Kim

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    10. Re:This case is a joke. by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    11. Re:This case is a joke. by fredprado · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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".

    12. Re:This case is a joke. by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    13. Re:This case is a joke. by djnanite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:This case is a joke. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Sounds like a party.

    15. Re:This case is a joke. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

      the Kiwis need to man up

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

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    16. Re:This case is a joke. by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

    17. Re:This case is a joke. by metacell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. This isn't good versus evil by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:This isn't good versus evil by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  3. Re:More like Kim Dot-Scum by djlowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  4. Re:Your opinion is a joke by sneakyimp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/