Kim Dotcom Outs Mega Teaser Site, Finalizes Domain Name

hypnosec writes "Kim Dotcom has let out more information about the launch of Megaupload's successor Mega, which he claims will be 'bigger, better, faster, stronger, [and] safer.' Mega is currently looking for partners willing to provide servers, support and connectivity to become 'Mega Storage Nodes.' The prime requirement, according to Dotcom, is that the servers should be located outside the U.S. and that the companies should also be based outside of the U.S. For this reason, Dotcom has decided that the new service will be launching with 'Me.ga' domain name."

Comments

Ugh

[niix]

I'm sick of hearing about this dude.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. He feels the same way about you, and he doesn't even know you exist.

Re:Ugh

[Hatta]

I'm sick of hearing about the US projecting its bad laws outside its jurisdiction.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

As sick as you may be, and as much of a bastard he may be. He is currently turning into a reborn martyr of internet freedom.

I wish him luck in his ventures and hope for service that is as good as his old. The only half way decent file service out there is mediafire, but rapidshare has gained some ground in recent months by being better than they were a year ago.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you're doing it to your self as the summary makes no referance to the ongoing legal case.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

So quit reading about it! And if people would just lay down and submit, then maybe the media would stop reporting it, and then you wouldn't have to worry. Preach total submission; long-term it's the only way to get what you want.

Re:Ugh

[BetterSense]

According the the article I read in my dead-tree Wired issue, plus speculation, the new service is going to be fully encrypted, forcing all users to encrypt their uploads so that the upload service itself cannot see what the content on its severs is, and so they have total plausible deniability, with the added bonus that the government also can't find clear-text data on their servers to incriminate them with.

This might also allow you and your trusted friends to upload anything you want, and megaupload/your ISP/the government cannot then bust you for copyright infringement or whatever, for the practical reason that they don't know what the data is. Of course this is possible now with current technology, but a cloud storage service with a good user interface with this feature 'built-in' and mandatory might be what it takes to get ordinary people to encrypt their content. Imagine Dropbox with mandatory encryption. True cypherpunks would argue that everything should have always been like this anyway.

Of course, Big Content doesn't roll over for such technicalities so I expect this to simply spawn more anti-cryptography laws.

Re:Ugh

[NevarMore]

The move somewhere else if you don't lik....oh right.

Re:Ugh

[funwithBSD]

Just wait until it is the UN dictating the rules.

They are already lining up "blasphemy" laws restricting free speech and eyeballing a global Internet Tax.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

And we're sick of your posts. They don't contribute anything to Slashdot at all. You're stupid and ignorant, and a perfect example as to why abortion in the US should remain legal. It's a pity your mother didn't avail herself of it.
 
However, it's still not to late to correct her oversight. Please, kill yourself.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

As sick as you may be, and as much of a bastard he may be. He is currently turning into a reborn martyr of internet freedom.

I wish him luck in his ventures and hope for service that is as good as his old. The only half way decent file service out there is mediafire, but rapidshare has gained some ground in recent months by being better than they were a year ago.

In my opinion, he wouldn't come of as NEARLY so much an unmitigated douchebag if he didn't legally change his last name to "Dotcom". Seriously, it'd be that simple. If he didn't do that, he'd probably have far more respect than he does now.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

His post was in response to a post that said they were sick of hearing stories about Dotcom.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine Dropbox with mandatory encryption.

Like https://www.cyphertite.com/ ?

Re:Ugh

[SuricouRaven]

There's a procedure to follow, though. Anti-crypto laws are tricky things to get through politically. Doable, but it needs a good excuse, and 'Hollywood isn't rich enough' is not going to do it easily. The obvious justification is child porn. The mere suspicion of child pornography is toxic today, and any acts justified as opposing child porn are near-impossible to argue against without being branded a pedophile-enabler.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine Dropbox with mandatory encryption. True cypherpunks would argue that everything should have always been like this anyway.

There are reasons why this isn't the default -- Dropbox relies on de-duplication to reduce their storage and bandwith costs.
Encrypting the data before upload would remove that possibility.
Not that it's not worth doing -- but it will be more expensive than a non-secure equivalent.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro tip to the ordinary people out there, the current "encryption" that most pirates use today is called "yenc"

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

>This might also allow you and your trusted friends to upload anything you want, and megaupload/your ISP/the government cannot then bust you for copyright infringement or whatever, for the practical reason that they don't know what the data is

Unless of course you post the key to decipher them on the public site where you advertise your uploads URLs which is the models the download sites rely on.

And if they instead rely on private communities, their impact will be less important and big content will have won, de facto. And big communities, if they happened to exist, will be easily infiltrated, so we will have a few heads rolling here and there during a few publicized trials, instead of just Dotcom's. So, basically, megaupload is just getting itself out of the responsability loop at the price of efficiency.

Re:Ugh

[Hatta]

Sure, the MAFIAA can trawl file sharing sites and get the password to the key. But they can't trace it back to who uploaded it, so they can't sue you. And Mega can't know that you've posted the key, so Mega can't know what's in the encrypted file. So they can't sue Mega either.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Then do something about it.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

... the file upload encryption will take place "on the fly" ... utilizing plug in technology -
  get ready for a plug in ;-) with "additional" features ( think Ad substitution )

Re:Ugh

[AK Marc]

Why would he be re-launching his site (the explicit topic at hand)? I'll give you a hint, it' because the US projected it's power outside its jurisdiction.

Meh, the Internet will just route around the damage. The problem is that the "damage" is the USA.

Re:Ugh

[AK Marc]

Ah yes, any service that doesn't make it easy for copyright holder to oppress the masses must be "child porn." After all, you don't have anything to hide, do you?

Re:Ugh

[Beezlebub33]

Can they then submit a take-down notice? What do they have to do to support it? Since there does not appear to be a cost associated with submitting incorrect / false take-down notices, then they could take a shotgun approach and take-down pretty much everything. Of course, mega won't have to implement this (not being US based), but the question is: what happens then? Another raid?

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny isn't it? If they don't encrypt anything and people get in and take it, they are at fault, but if they do encrypt it, then there are more laws to try and force you to give the government the keys.

The US Government passed a law about five years ago requiring any new encryption developers to provide the US government enough of a key that they could decrypt it in short order. It was about that time, that I decided to encrypt several terabytes of random data, just to shove it up their ass for them to suck on.

Re:Ugh

[Abreu]

It's funny how right wingers in the USA seem to think the United Nations is all-powerful.

Guys, the UN has no power whatsoever, it cannot dictate laws to member states, much less enforce them.

Re:Ugh

[EdIII]

The problem is that the "damage" is the USA.

HARDLY

The USA is not alone in this bullshit by any stretch. There are just as many problems in the EU right now. ALL governments right now are corrupt and owned by very powerful groups with intense interests in protecting the revenue from their copyrights.

Nobody wants to change, and there are a bunch of rent seeking sociopaths that are trying to kill freedom as quickly as possible, because it is the most direct route to having the control required to protect their business models and assets.

To say it is the USA only, gives a huge pass to those governments in the EU.

Re:Ugh

[kenorland]

I'm sick of publishers and rich folks from the world over lobbying US Congress and messing with US politics.

I'm also sick of Europeans passing bad laws, letting the US do their dirty work, and then blaming Americans for the mess.

Re:Ugh

[kenorland]

Guys, the UN has no power whatsoever, it cannot dictate laws to member states, much less enforce them.

There are tons of bad treaties that come out of the UN and that are nearly impossible for member nations to leave. For example, the US couldn't legalize drugs however much it may want to. These treaties often represent policy laundering and are imposed undemocratically by the executive branch. Furthermore, the UN has something much stronger than military, namely the power to punish states through trade penalties, and those penalties are imposed on any nation that steps out of line, including the US.

The UN isn't all powerful, but it is also far from powerless. And we should never forget that the UN is not a democracy and has no moral authority; the majority of its members are undemocratic or worse. The UN is merely a body where states can try to work out their differences, nothing more.

Re:Ugh

[tqk]

I'm sick of hearing about this dude.

I'm sick of a lot of things. Hearing about "this dude" is nowhere near the end of that list.

kdc's trials and tribulations are very entertaining, especially how he's managed to tie two separate countries' legal systems in knots. We can only dream to get those !@#$%^&* as worked up about us as he's managed to. Good on him.

"How !@#$ed up is the US' DoJ? How incompetent are they?" Well, sic kdc on 'em, and let's find out. Now "That's Entertainment!" From what I've heard, I wouldn't like the guy personally, but he sure puts on a good show. Rock on!

Re:Ugh

[antsbull]

Hold on a minute - are other countries involved with this prosecution too? If not, what you have just said is irrelevant.

Re:Ugh

[AK Marc]

Nah, the US is the damage. Just like nobody outside China is affected by the great firewall, and most inside don't know or aren't affected by it (the damage routing has already been done), the routing around the US is happening now. Europe and such are better, at least most placed don't allow patents on math, yet, so no software patents. Strange that the US law prevents a sorting algorithm on paper from being patented, but if you patent it "on a computer" that patent can be applied t the algorithm on paper. That kind of insanity is damage and will be routed around.

THe ??AA have the choice to adapt before irrelevance is complete, or they will be routed around, no matter how may of who they buy. Sure, they can shut down Napster and megauploads, but how's that doing for online piracy? Still going up? How about CD prices? Still increasing as downloads increase? You can (economically) prove the system is broken just from that. Demand goes down and supply goes up while prices go up. A person sufficiently cynical would argue they are keeping CD prices artificially high (and restricting authorized online availability) to push people to illegal downloads to then go out and make all that illegal, when dropping the price on CDs to $5 or $10 each for everything would greatly increase profits and revenues.

Re:Ugh

[EdIII]

That's going to be quite problematic in practice with technology like TrueCrypt.

1) Outlawing crypto, or forcing the keys to be available is the clearest act of war against civilians by a government, and a perfectly just cause to rebel and overthrow the government. Anonymity, and the right to conduct private transactions and conversations was held to be sacrosanct the founding fathers in the US. They, more than anybody, understood the value, and how absolutely critical it was to prevent tyranny.

2) The operations can be divested from each other. Creating a crypto product that can manage data stores on service like Drop Box would create multiple companies, or a larger attack surface for law enforcement and the courts. Neither company would have the required information and access to data to comply with court requests, and neither company might be breaking the law either.

3) Technologies like TrueCrypt allow for the dissemination of a crypto key, while not disseminating the real data store. I've not heard of any real weaknesses yet, and complaining to the judge that the defendant did not comply because there was no incriminating evidence will not hold a lot of water either.

Pedophile enabler is the stupidest thing I've heard of yet when characterizing data storage services. That's like saying gun manufacturers are enablers of murders. No, it's worse. It's like saying construction crews that create roads are enablers of childhood obesity because ice cream trucks can use them.

The fact that politicians use such tactics is pathetic, and that some citizens fall for it, even more pathetic.

For the record, I would rather be enabling some pedophiles to transfer data around privately, than to give up all our freedom for some perceived gains in security for our children.

Sure, your child might have a %.000001 chance less of taking it up the ass by PedoBear, but they will have a dangerously high chance of growing up in a world where they can put in jail, or education camps, for dissenting speech.

Re:Ugh

[EdIII]

No it isn't.

The poster made the claim that the damage the Internet needs to route around is the USA.

That's clearly not true in all cases, and ignores quite a bit of legal cases and laws being proposed in the EU, Australia, etc.

Re:Ugh

[EdIII]

I have to disagree.

There are far too many articles about incidents in the EU regarding just about everything we are complaining about.

What about Canada? What about Australia?

The USA is not alone in this at all. The damage the Internet needs to route around is governments curtailing freedom, privacy, and anonymity, in the name of protecting these broken business models, while at the same time gaining the intelligence tools they claim will be used to protect us.

Re:Ugh

[AK Marc]

Australia wants to be the US. Especially the bad parts. Every movie from there has as many or more warnings than the US ones. Though they had some sensible laws passed before they turned the wrong corner, and it's illegal to lock down regions, as that's anti-consumer. Canada arguably alllows unlimited legal downloading because you've paid for the piracy with a levy on the media.

No, no place is as bad as the US, and even then, only the English Speaking world is following the US lead. Some others may pass some laws for aid and such, but they don't spend their money enforcing them. allofmp3 was so hard to take down because it was explicitly legal, both in Russia and in the US (though that law will be challenged again soon with the student importing textbooks being taken to court). to take down allofmp3, it took threats and bribes from the US government and ??AA to lean on it, but it was never legally challenged in Russia or the US, and both agree it was legal, in so far as no legal action was *ever* taken against allofmp3.

So no, the US isn't the only place with "damage" but it is largely localized, and is being routed around. That's happened in business for 10 years now, as I know a number of international deals that went to Europe companies, as the Chinese and Indian engineers working on the infrastructure projects couldn't get in the US to buy from the US supplier.

Re:Ugh

[SuricouRaven]

Panem? Check. Circenses? Check. Revolution averted.

You're right. Pedophile enabler is stupid. And yet, it works. Do not underestimate public ignorance and desire for a good old-fashioned moral outrage, or a legitimate target to hate. Pedophiles are the new communists, or witches. A little flimsy evidence is all you need to ruin someone's life. After all, if they won't reveal the key, they must be guilty.

Re:Ugh

[Mullen]

Guys, the UN has no power whatsoever, it cannot dictate laws to member states, much less enforce them.

There are tons of bad treaties that come out of the UN and that are nearly impossible for member nations to leave. For example, the US couldn't legalize drugs however much it may want to. These treaties often represent policy laundering and are imposed undemocratically by the executive branch. Furthermore, the UN has something much stronger than military, namely the power to punish states through trade penalties, and those penalties are imposed on any nation that steps out of line, including the US.

Huh? How is the UN suppose to enforce anything on any country without the cooperation of other countries. If the UN decided to launch an embargo against the US, it would find that no one would follow along and its notice would be a worthless as the paper it is written on. If the UN says, "Drugs are bad, mmkay?", and bans them, they have no way to enforce their rules. None. Nadda. Zilch. If California legalizes it, how is the UN going to force California to decriminalize drugs? Without a standing army, the ruling of the UN is as worthless as, well, the UN.

The UN isn't all powerful, but it is also far from powerless. And we should never forget that the UN is not a democracy and has no moral authority; the majority of its members are undemocratic or worse. The UN is merely a body where states can try to work out their differences, nothing more.

The UN is powerless and since we (The US) pays a good chunk of their bills, they will do what we tell them.

Re:Ugh

[jonwil]

What I want to know is just what algorithm they plan to use for this encryption and whether they plan to be open and honest about what the crypto they are using or whether they are going to be another snake-oil salesman that promises "strong crypto" but then uses something so weak that a kid in his bedroom could crack it easily.

Re:Ugh

[Tom]

For example, the US couldn't legalize drugs however much it may want to.

Unlike, say, the Netherlands? Yeah, right...

Furthermore, the UN has something much stronger than military, namely the power to punish states through trade penalties, and those penalties are imposed on any nation that steps out of line, including the US.

No, it doesn't. It's member states do. The UN is merely the place where they agree to do it.

Re:Ugh

[kenorland]

If California legalizes it, how is the UN going to force California to decriminalize drugs? Without a standing army, the ruling of the UN is as worthless as, well, the UN.

California can legalize drugs all it wants (and it should). The treaty is between the US federal government and other nations, and that treaty is hard to get out of. The UN is one mechanism by which the US gets stuck with such treaties.

How is the UN suppose to enforce anything on any country without the cooperation of other countries

Countries enforce treaty provisions against each other by whatever mechanisms the treaties provide. The UN is the mechanism by which these treaties get created, often in an undemocratic way and contrary to the interests of Americans.

That doesn't mean that we should give up on the UN, but it means that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using the UN as a political tool. The UN is a tool, it has no moral authority.

Re:Ugh

[Tom]

That's amateur legal theory and pretty dangerous.

Of course they can sue Mega. You can sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether they succeed is the interesting question. And that's not quite as easy to say, because courts are pretty good when it comes to looking at the spirit of things, not the letter.

The court would take a good, hard look at Mega and probably conclude that its primary purpose is to trade copyrighted material illegally while taking considerable steps to hide it. That's a criminal conspiracy.

They don't need to look into the files. They just need the internal e-mails, like they did in the Megaupload case.

Re:Ugh

[kenorland]

Unlike, say, the Netherlands? Yeah, right...

The Netherlands have not legalized drugs, they have reduced enforcement.

No, it doesn't. It's member states do. The UN is merely the place where they agree to do it.

Are you confused about how judiciary and police relate to each other? Oh, yes, I see you are.

Re:Ugh

[rebot777]

You can (economically) prove the system is broken just from that. Demand goes down and supply goes up while prices go up. A person sufficiently cynical would argue they are keeping CD prices artificially high (and restricting authorized online availability) to push people to illegal downloads to then go out and make all that illegal, when dropping the price on CDs to $5 or $10 each for everything would greatly increase profits and revenues.

You could also argue that people that will pirate have already been priced out. If your're making 80k the difference between free, 12 and 20 isn't that big. However if you're making 25k the difference between free, 12, and 20 is huge. Mostly people are just paying for convenience and organization now. That's why iTunes has been such a success even though it competes directly with free.

Re:Ugh

[tqk]

To say it is the USA only, gives a huge pass to those governments in the EU.

The thing is, though, it seems very much to be USA driven., and the Euros (from what I've read) have been fighting against it harder than pretty much anyone. TPB is Swedish, yes? SOPA, PIPA, TPP, DMCA, yada, yada, yada: USA! When it showed up in Poland, thousands (tens of thousands?) of people actually hit the streets (literally) in lousy weather and scared Polish politicians silly enough to kill it. France is "this close" to killing their "N Strikes" (HADOPI?) thingy. Portugal, Spain, ... don't appear to think this's a problem worth their time, or that kind of a solution to the problem is worse than the problem itself.

The US, on the other hand, continues full speed ahead; damn the torpedos! The USA's legacy entertainment industry is definitely the prime mover behind most of this madness.

[I love Poles. :-) This world needs lots more people like them.]

Re:Ugh

[tqk]

Of course, Big Content doesn't roll over for such technicalities so I expect this to simply spawn more anti-cryptography laws.

They can pass all the anti-cryptography laws that they want. It doesn't mean I'll stop using it. George Washington would approve, I think.

Re:Ugh

[tqk]

Imagine Dropbox with mandatory encryption.

Like https://www.cyphertite.com/

Thanks for mentioning it. Looks cool.

Re:Ugh

[AK Marc]

The pirates come back if the product "sold" isn't worse than the pirated one. The store-bought one doesn't work (DRM and such) and the pirated one works better (no unskippable ads and such). But when the paid version is as good as the pirated one, and at a reasonable cost, people buy the paid version (Steam, iTunes, etc.) It's conveneince and cost. and it doesn't matter if they sold it for free, the inconveneince of the DRM store versions is enough to push people to pirate.

Re:Ugh

[tbird81]

So that makes it okay?

And it's not just "right wingers", and it's not just the USA.

The UN is a fucking horrible waste of space and money. They are an incredibly corrupt organisation, and they get the dregs of our troughing failed/retired politicians.

I hate the fact that my taxes go to support this organisation that I have no control of, and can write laws that I have no influence over.

It's powerlessness is it's only good point. I'm glad that I don't live in Europe though - the EU seems a much more nasty (and expensive) equivalent. And they can enforce laws.

Re:Ugh

[tbird81]

AES

Re:Ugh

[Xest]

Sorry, just reminded me what hole ACTA came out of it and where it was defeated?

It came out of the US and It was defeated by the EU - not national governments, no, governments like the UK's were willing to sign us right up to ACTA.

The EU is actually the only political entity that did listen to people and did then kill off ACTA as a result.

But keep telling yourself the US isn't the problem if it makes you feel better. I agree EU nations follow US demands for stricter copyright enforcement, and the EU does have some copyright fascists (Sarkzy was a good example, Jeremy Hunt still is) but the facilitation of this ideology comes purely from the US. Jeremy Hunt is only where he is because the US has assisted Murdoch in exporting the Atlanticist ideology for so long for example.

Re:Ugh

[tehcyder]

DRM is more of a philosophical than practical problem. It annoys geeks, but doesn't seem to matter to most normal consumers.

Personally, I think that if you have philosophical objections to material with DRM then you should just not buy that material. If enough people did this, DRM would be abandoned. If you pirate it instead, nothing changes. If not enough peple care to boycott DRM-encumbered products, that just means DRM isn't that important to must people.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah shut the fuck up you ignorant xenophobic prick.

The only way the UN can line up and pass blasphemy laws and a global internet tax is if the US and every other country in the world votes for it too which is better than the current status quo where only the US has to vote for it.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that the very UN treaties you're talking about are hard to get out of precisely because the US uses it's political, economic, and military weight to enforce them right?

It's not because the UN has some mystical power to enforce these things, they can only be enforced when global heavyweights insist on that.

In other words it's not the UN per-se that is the problem, but the US. If you blew up the whole of the US tommorrow and completely erased it from the equation, I guarantee such laws would soon relax.

You're trying to blame the UN as if it's some separate self-concious entity that comes up with shit like the WTO all by itself. It's not, it's merely there to facilitate global discussion and implementation of the likes of the WTO once a nation like the US has proposed it and bullied everyone into signing it.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

If "the MAFIAA can trawl file sharing sites and get the password to the key" it can determine the file is illegal, issue a notice to the mega to take down the file, remove the account and give infos about the uploader, and also targets the blog or forum that gathers the file (like they did with the piraye bay) if it's too successfull.

So basically' all this is going to do is add a layer of complexity which will undermine its success in order to remove the people of mega from the legal responsability loop.

I fail to see how it can be a game changer.

Re:Ugh

[EdIII]

I never said the US was not part of the problem, or that it is attempting to export its extreme copyright protectionist policies.

Keep telling yourselves that the US is where it all comes from though. Purely? That's a load of crap.

A lot of the scariest ideas coming down the pipeline are from the UK and Australia when it comes to surveillance and Internet powers. Not all of that is being justified by copyright either, which your claim that is purely driven by the US.

ACTA was defeated in the US because enough people in the US stood up to it, not because it was also defeated in the EU.

It's a mistake to give the rest of the governments a pass as just being under the bad influence of the US. They have their own agendas when it comes to the Internet, and freedom, and not all of it is driven by copyrights at all. In fact, copyright most often is just another excuse, like think-of-the-children.

Re:Ugh

[Xest]

"A lot of the scariest ideas coming down the pipeline are from the UK and Australia when it comes to surveillance and Internet powers. Not all of that is being justified by copyright either, which your claim that is purely driven by the US."

But all that's national and none of it's exported. The UK internet censorship regulations to date have all been driven by the US media industries and this is why people have a problem.

No one gives a shit about China's censorship if China keeps it to itself it's China's problem the problem is that the US exports all it's bad ideas and forces them on everyone else.

"ACTA was defeated in the US because enough people in the US stood up to it, not because it was also defeated in the EU."

ACTA was never defeated in the US full stop, the US government signed up to it and were it not for the EU defeat it would've come into power there. It was signed on the basis that everyone would sign up to it but the EU would not, hence preventing it from becoming law in the US. The US never withdrew it's signature prior to the EU killing the bill so what you say here is completely and utterly false. Perhaps you're confusing it with SOPA/PIPA?

"It's a mistake to give the rest of the governments a pass as just being under the bad influence of the US. They have their own agendas when it comes to the Internet, and freedom, and not all of it is driven by copyrights at all. In fact, copyright most often is just another excuse, like think-of-the-children."

No but most of that ideology IS driven by the US. Much of the non-copyright bad legislation in the UK stems from Murdoch's lobbying (it is his papers that drive it) and it is the US that allows Murdoch to act as a vehicle for pushing it's policy as it does.

This doesn't absolve the UK of blame, the UK should stand up to it, but it doesn't absolve the US either because the US can stop it also by stopping the export of it's ideas abroad in the various ways it does.

Re:Ugh

[jep305]

Sometimes, smaller markets (less demand) actually result in higher prices per unit sold, because the fixed costs associated with creating and distributing ANY amount of supply have to be spread across fewer units sold.

Re:Ugh

[AK Marc]

No, it does annoy most consumers. The issue is that it would never annoy my mother. She doesn't and wouldnt buy anything online. That makes her a non-consumer, like so many others. When you consume only DVDs and paper books, then DRM won't annoy you so much The DVD DRM is trivial, though she does get annoyed sometimes by Disney, as they no longer meet the DVD standard due to their DRM, and playback in a DVD player can fail, but she attributes most of the errors to scratches and other things that are easier to understand.

But those that it would annoy don't consume DRMd products (partially because of the DRM).

Re:Ugh

[garaged]

Other countries are trying to enforce the same kind of moves

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

THe UN isn't any worse as a source of lousy treaties than the WTO, except that the WTO seems to be more reflective of "American interests".

Of course, both are better than IMF recommendations, which always seem to be the same (sell everything which provides the government with a source of non-tax income at knock-down prices, cut all foreign trade restrictions, cut public services, cut corporate taxes and raise income taxes, and take away whatever workers' rights you can get away with), and almost always leave the country even more messed up than before (since now they're broke and have nothing to sell). Whether that's stupidity (not noticing that it doesn't work), insanity (thinking it ail work this time), religious fervour (it will work, if only they go a bit further - just like faith healing, if it isn't working, it's because you're not praying enough), evil (they actually don't want it to work), or just plain laziness (they keep getting paid a lot of money to give the same lousy advice, so they're not going to bother to try anything new), isn't exactly obvious.

Re:Ugh

[tqk]

DRM is more of a philosophical than practical problem. It annoys geeks, but doesn't seem to matter to most normal consumers.

No. I spent most of yesterday and the day before talking/negotiating with Apple tech support trying to fix my parents' Mac. They were all great and wonderful to deal with. I even had a manager call me to inform me that the people who sold it to them sold them the wrong support contract, but he could fix it automatically from their end if that was alright. Great! :-)

Then, I could ask them technical questions. Not before. That's DRM.

I bill corporates ca. C$75.00/hr. for this !@#$.[*] I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for my Mom owning a geekboy son, it never would've been fixed. I like how Macs work. I don't like the price all that proprietary corporate !@#$ sells for. Why do I have to waste a day and a half proving to them what they sold me? The richest corp on the planet *ought* to have this down flawlessly by now.

Nope. Sucks.

[*] I'm considering talking to NCIS. Leon Panetta appears to need my help. Still thinking about it ... (http://www.ncis.navy.mil/Careers/Cyber/Pages/default.aspx). Interesting.

Re:Ugh

[tqk]

Sometimes, smaller markets (less demand) actually result in higher prices per unit sold ...

Otherwise known as the Ferrari vs. Volkswagon Principle. Filet Mignon or Big Mac? Nippon Sikis or Adidas? Cotton or polyester? Virginia or Turkish? Pleistocene or Cretacious?

Re:Ugh

[OneAhead]

Sheesh, take a cold shower or something. Opening a debate about something doesn't equal lining up laws. It seems that in the country of freedom, some things (like putting limits on said freedom) cannot even be talked about.

And moderators, what's the thing with this being modded +5 interesting? Apparently, the US hive mind still hasn't gotten over the UN making poor Dubya go to Iraq without its stamp of legitimacy. Which is weird considering that most do admit the war itself was, in fact, not really legitimate.

Re:Ugh

[OneAhead]

I hate the fact that my taxes go to support this organisation that I have no control of, and can write laws that I have no influence over.

Assuming that you're an US voter, I'll would like you to know that your elected government has a vote in most if not all UN organs. Yes, you're not directly voting for the proposals that are on the table. Yes, your vote is not weighted by the population of your country. Sounds a bit like, say, electoral colleges, don't you think?

I'm glad that I don't live in Europe though - the EU seems a much more nasty (and expensive) equivalent. And they can enforce laws.

Have you tried talking to a few Europeans? I for one enjoyed living under my EU overlords. They're much more pragmatic in their decision making and there's much less over-the-top ideological drama/gridlock. Comparing it with the US federal government, I'm always amazed that this country hasn't collapsed under its own inertia yet.

Admittedly, the EU still has far less power over its member states than the federal government.

Re:Ugh

[shentino]

I hate pirates.

I hate greedy publishers even more.

At least the pirates are honest.

Publishers, however, are happy to give lip-service to respect for IP when they consider piracy just as unwanted competition and also treat indies the same way.

The acid test: If piracy stopped, would DRM stop too?

Re:Ugh

[Seeteufel]

It wasn't defeated in the US, only in Europe and thus cannot enter into force.

Have to say...

[santax]

He has pretty big balls. I wish him all the best. But this time, I hope he will build a safe-room, in a safe-room because this is going to upset a lot of tier 1 criminals, eh businesspeople.

Re:Have to say...

[Charliemopps]

There's a house in California that's built in an old abandon mineshaft. It's nearly a mile deep and an elevator is required for access. Inside there's a natural spring that the home owner can use for water. It even has its own water fall and such. I've always wanted to get something like that. Get enough food down there and you could survive just about anything. Want to expand? Get a pickaxe. I'm sure he could have waited down there long enough for his lawyers to get this taken care of. lol

Re:Have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody has been playing a lot of minecraft

Re:Have to say...

[TheCarp]

> Want to expand? Get a pickaxe

There was some old jew in the midwest (I think) that built his own secret bomb shelter under his house. Did it himself, dug it, poured concrete, complete with blast doors, ventilation, multiple rooms.

It took him many years, and as I remember the pictures of him, he was jacked. Of course, he should be after all that digging and hauling.

In any case, you will need more than a pick axe, you will need materials to build structures and a lot of time....and some place to move the dirt....

Re:Have to say...

[The Grassy Knoll]

And the famous Mole Man of Hackney

Re:Have to say...

[MoaDweeb]

He DID have a safe room and went and hid. The Police enticed him out later with candy bars and threats.

Re:Have to say...

[camperdave]

I think you mean this.

Re:Have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

The middle ground is the encrypt files using a hash as the key to the symmetric cipher. This results in all identical files being encrypted to identical encrypted text, but the downloader still needs to know the hash of the *plaintext* to decrypt.

Re:Have to say...

[nullchar]

Why don't you purchase one of these properties?

Re:Have to say...

[Goaway]

Sure takes big balls to ask other people to take the risk for you, while you make the money.

Re:Have to say...

[countach]

Maybe he figures that if his legal situation is ok, hey might as well make more money. And if his legal situation is screwed, hey he's screwed already anyway.

Re:Have to say...

[Tom]

He has pretty big balls.

Yes, and that's the only thing he has. The glorification on /. makes me want to puke. The guy is an asshole career criminal. He needs the publicity like a drug, and that's why he's doing it, not for any idealistic reasons.

Not everyone who fights the bad guys is a good guy, people. Sometimes, bad guys fight amongst each other.

Re:Have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

No No Kim's double chin just confirmed it was cake, everyone falls for the cake.

Re:Have to say...

[tbird81]

What did he do wrong? He's had previous small-time crimes in Germany, but nothing since.

He ran a website you could upload things to. What's so "bad" about that?

Re:Have to say...

[dunkelfalke]

Depends on your definition of wrong.

He made money of phreaking and warez and then switched sides and helped the police and lawyers to bait warez traders.

Later there was investor fraud and insider trading. For that alone he'd have prison time, but German courts can be very illogical.

He is a crook and a notorious liar.

Looking forward to downloading warez & pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

Kim,

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

Yes!

How long until:

[ledow]

"The domain name associated with the website Me.ga has been seized pursuant to an order issued by the U.S. District Court"

(or equivalent).

Re:How long until:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's administered by the country of Gabon, so what you say is unlikely.

Re:How long until:

[Anonymous Coward]

With the stuff happening in UAE, it won't be the US. What we will see is:

"This domain associated with the website me.ga has been seized pursuant to the anti-blasphemy laws in Elbonia."

Copyright Cartels are one thing... but wait until we get countries who torture and kill people (and their families) because of some mention about an event or happening, or just a jibe at one of the rulers.

Re:How long until:

[TheRaven64]

And the more important question: will he be changing his name to Kim Dotga?

Re:How long until:

[ledow]

Yeah, the US would never interfere in foreign countries where they have no jurisdiction to get their hands on a suspected copyright-infringer, would they?

Gabon looks like just the kind of place that a little backhander and/or exchange of oil purchases could make anything happen.

Re:How long until:

[gstoddart]

"The domain name associated with the website Me.ga has been seized pursuant to an order issued by the U.S. District Court"

Well, the rationale for seizing his other one was that since it was a .com, and America owns .com (apparently), it was within their rights.

A domain not registered with a US authority, for a company entirely based outside of the US ... unless they can intimidate a local government into playing along, they may find themselves with no 'real' jurisdiction. A US District Court might get told that what they want is irrelevant.

Of course, it's not entirely without precedent for the US to do these things anyway without the knowledge or permission of the country where it takes place. And there's certainly loads of pressure they would be willing to apply in the form of trade sanctions and other diplomatic pressure.

Re:How long until:

[Anonymous Coward]

Gabon might just seize it for a small donation.

Re:How long until:

[homsar]

Is that even necessary? Couldn't the US Government simply order ICANN to suspend .ga?

Re:How long until:

[SuricouRaven]

In theory, yes - though it'd take some time to be implimented. It'd be a big step though, as it would undermine all trust in the DNS system, and that is something the US can't afford to do right now. The UN is already pressing for a more multinational management - an abuse of power by the US would only prove them right.

Re:How long until:

[Anonymous Coward]

The .ga TLD is operated by Gabon Telecom SA, which is owned by Maroc Telecom, which is owned by Vivendi SA.

Re:How long until:

[PuZZleDucK]

I'd go for: "Me.Ga KiM"

Re:How long until:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that will be quite difficult. Look at the way he has built the company and the wording he is using. No mention of 'illegal' things. Intentional wording and very direct wording about who owns what and who is responsible for what. From what I've seen on the main site so far he is doing everything right and visually he is really keeping his hands clean. Not to mention he is excellent at creating media buzz to discredit his accusers.

And so we see the true enemy of the internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

The IP rights lobbyists and their flunky Legislators.

It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

And its not going to be "America's" internet.

We are going back to our old ways of isolating ourselves from the world because of the greed of a very few.

While Kim may be greedy and potentially an asshole, he's going to win and is playing by rules far more legitimate then our current IP circus.

To those of you in the MPAA, RIAA, and software, mobile phone, and ISP industries. You cannot fight this. Learn and adapt or you will fail while people like Kim refuse to lay down and prosper.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, if the international community has its way it will be the internet of the dictators and Kim Dotcom will be shut down for blasphemy and incorrect politics and we'll all be left wishing copyright law was the worst thing that happened to us.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[misexistentialist]

It's not like the governments of other countries are enthusiastic about an open internet.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Dan667]

they have already been gutted, it will just take a while for them to bleed out. Kind of like microsoft.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Elbereth]

While Kim may be greedy and potentially an asshole, he's going to win and is playing by rules far more legitimate then our current IP circus.

That's a very Machiavellian philosophy, tantamount to Realpolitik. Realpolitik is why the USA supported so many corrupt dictators and bloody warlords during the Cold War. We looked the other way when they committed human rights abuses and atrocities, because they were seen as a stabilizing influence and loyal anti-communists.

To those of you in the MPAA, RIAA, and software, mobile phone, and ISP industries. You cannot fight this. Learn and adapt or you will fail while people like Kim refuse to lay down and prosper.

If he refuses to prosper, then it should be easy to win against Kim Dotcom.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, but some will always remain more flexible then others. And in the end I think they will either win through economic or intellectual superiority by either undercutting or outsmarting the competition.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe yes poorly worded rhetoric. I meant to say if he refuses to lay down he will have a chance of prospering. If the international community allows it.

But your right its pretty damn Machiavellian.

Things are moving forward though and its getting harder to "stop" filesharing through censorship.

The best possible end result of all this will be technology immune to censorship because the geeks of the world dont like the party line.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

...because of the greed of a very few...

So wanting to be paid for your product is greedy? Do you feel the same way about clothing, food, cars, etc.?

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[PraiseBob]

While Kim may be greedy and potentially an asshole, he's going to win and is playing by rules far more legitimate then our current IP circus.

Except he had his personal assets seized, his companys assets destroyed, and is facing huge legal fees along with possible extradition and decades of prison time. You say he will win the legal battle, but everything done to him so far has been illegal and yet it was still done. The forces working against him don't really care about following legal procedure, they care about ruining his life. And anybody who wants to follow his business models certainly has to carefully consider how much of their own life they are putting at risk by going against the current IP circus. Or take a look at the guys from Pirate Bay, locked in cages in solitary confinement. Are they winning the fight?

I'm all for a more open internet, but your viewpoint is full of idealistic assumptions that are by no means assured.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[houghi]

To those of you in the MPAA, RIAA, and software, mobile phone, and ISP industries. You cannot fight this.

Sure they can fight this. They have been fighting since Gutenberg. OK, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law says :
Pope Alexander VI issued a bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books.
And :
Popes conceded at different times to certain printers the exclusive privilege of printing for specific terms (rarely exceeding 14 years)
That is 50 years after Gutenberg started printing.

So don't say they can't fight it. They have been fighting it for a LOT longer then you and me are around and they will continue fighting it.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[xigxag]

Unfortunately they can fight it, and have continued to fight even after the death of megaupload. Almost every filesharing service which was predominant two years ago has folded or has severely tightened its policies. Almost none of them now accept paypal; you have to pay with a credit card or wire transfer using some dodgy offshore middleman.

And once "me.ga" is deemed an outlaw business by the USA, then subscribing to the service, or advertising on the service, or linking to the service will be considered "terrorism" or "money laundering" or some other highly criminal activity. So, Kim Dotcom's new service might prosper, but it will not be something that American citizens will be able to share in. We'll still be held hostage by the MAFIAA, as usual.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[CBravo]

We've been doing business with Cuba too...

Who has not.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[ohnocitizen]

while people like Kim refuse to lay down and prosper.

I dunno, Laying down and prospering sounds like a pretty good deal.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[runeghost]

Wanting to get paid for your work is not greedy. Charging many multiples of a product's 'fair market value' by leveraging legislative or other control channels you possess (aka. rent extraction), or preventing people from legally-mandated fair access to content they have bought and paid for, is both greedy and wicked.

The public does not make nice distinctions between "oh, the restrictions on this IP here are pretty reasonable while those on that IP over there are just crazy". To the vast majority of people, IP and copyright are fungible concepts that do not vary from one product or author to another. Most readers had a very good idea of what was fair (checking out a book from a library, lending it to a friend, selling it to a used bookstore) and what wasn't (printing copies of books and selling them for personal profit, stealing ideas or entire texts without attribution). Those institutions that dominated the IP regime in the United States for decades (the MPAA and the RIAA, among others) decided that they were going to play hardball and lock things down so hard that people should consider themselves fortunate to be allowed to read their own books or listen to their own music. They lost. And then they doubled-down and lost again, and again and again. Now that they've finally screwed themselves (and the basic idea of Intellectual Property among a whole generation) to the point where they can see their own deaths approaching, NOW they're suddenly crying, "Omg! Won't someone think of the poor IP creators?". (The IP creators who the corporations screw over every chance they get.)

Too bad. They blew it. Do I feel bad for those talented folks who are going to find it difficult or impossible to make a living on their work? Do I mourn the creations that might have been but now never will be? Absolutely. But the bloated corporate monstrosities that killed the very of idea of decent copyright? They can burn, and when they run up to me begging, I may laugh, but I certainly won't put the fire out, not even if it gives me a chance to piss on them.

I'll just leave your false equivalence between digital and physical goods to lie there and rot, as it deserves.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the Pirate Bay guy isn't in solitary confinement and it's on a different charge (hacking the tax system), not for running TPB.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the Pirate Bay guy isn't in solitary confinement and it's on a different charge (hacking the tax system), not for running TPB.

You are correct only on the second point. He is in solitary however, and most people believe it's only for the reason of vengeance against him by the copyright cartel.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-held-in-solitary-confinement-write-him-a-letter-today-121020/

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

That's a very Machiavellian philosophy, tantamount to Realpolitik. Realpolitik is why the USA supported so many corrupt dictators and bloody warlords during the Cold War. We looked the other way when they committed human rights abuses and atrocities, because they were seen as a stabilizing influence and loyal anti-communists.

Yes, the US is embarking on another campaign to piss off the planet by causing trouble in other countries to push their agenda. We were willing to abandon all our principles when it came to fighting communism. Then again with the war on drugs. And again with the war on terrorism. And again with the war for IP. It's one of those cases where the slippery slope really did happen. If you told someone 100 years ago that the US would be spending trillions to push the corporate agenda of corporations that own nothing but ideas and sell nothing but 1s and 0s, they'd have laughed at you, and if you persisted in telling that correct future, then you'd likely have had part of your brain removed to shut up your insane rants. After all, the government isn't there to fight foreign wars for oil, or make marijuana illegal because the cotton industry found it a threat. Oh wait, it is, and it has. Too late. The only fix is a revolution, and the fat lazy American's are too happy with their bread and circuses.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

Yes, the US is embarking on another campaign to piss off the planet by causing trouble in other countries to push their agenda. We were willing to abandon all our principles when it came to fighting communism. Then again with the war on drugs.

Should we do less of this? By all means. But don't imagine for a moment that any other nation would do better.

The good thing is that once the US figures out the right thing to do on IP, drugs, terrorism, etc., the rest of the world is forced to follow. And unlike other nations, sooner or later, we actually do the right thing on our own accord.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

But don't imagine for a moment that any other nation would do better.

I moved out of the US because it's broken. I moved to a place that doesn't do this. There are nations out there that are better. Not everyone was founded on the purityranical foundations of the US where there's an immense fear that someone, somewhere is doing something we don't approve of, and we must stop them, or we passively endorse the act in question. We've alreade done that with Cuba and sex, I'm surprised we haven't done that for drugs. It's illegal to fly to someplace with a consent age below 18 to have sex with someone under 18, even if no laws are broken in that country and it would have been legal in the US. It's illegal to leave the US to perform a legal act because we wouldn't want to be seen to encouraging illegal acts when no illegal acts were committed.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

And they do fight for more legal protection for strong copyright protection, worldwide. There's always a few pieces of US and global legislation (treaties) in the MAFIAA pipeline. Each time one gets shot down (SOPA) another (PIPA) takes it's place. If that is denied, another (ACTA) takes it's place.

Why WE cannot give up the fight is because if any of those bills passed, they would still push the other legislative/treatise actions. If the MPAA/RIAA/worldwide-equivalents further slightly their goals in any compromise, they will not quit and will never cease legislative or private cooperation (US 6 Strikes).

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA / MPAA and their Congress will eventually drive all internet business outside of the USA. This is my prediction. Timeline to reality, 5 years, maybe. USAnet will look like MySpace with the whole planet avoiding touching the (toxic) US and USAians clambering for offshore surfing via VPN similar to the Chinese today.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[b4dc0d3r]

We are past the point of having a revolution. Surveillance cameras, drones, and a few key people holding the keys to the big weapons make sure of that.

The last successful terrorist attack served its purpose. It changed the American way of life. For the worse. And almost all of those changes apply to the people who want change the most. Further attacks in any form will bring the iron fist tighter, in the guise of providing safety.

There is no single target, or small group of targets, that will replace the people in power. If you were to somehow take out all of the lawmakers, you would have replacement lawmakers who follow the same masters. Try taking out the masters, they are very spread apart. It is futile.

There is no fight, there is no target. You have to do this by educating everyone you come into contact with. Calling for a revolution is like pissing in a hurricane.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

I moved to a place that doesn't do this.

Other places don't do this for the simple reason that they lack the power and economic success.

Not everyone was founded on the purityranical foundations of the US...

Neither was the US. The US was founded by people who believed in liberty and justice, strongly influenced by the Enlightenment.

I moved out of the US because it's broken.

And what country is not "broken" in your sense? Do let us know!

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[b4dc0d3r]

Charging many times a product's fair market value, when people are still buying it, seems to re-define fair market value. The cost of production is irrelevant to the cost. What people will pay is the market value.

Yes, it's greedy to maximize your profits by establishing a price point that gets you the most buyers at the most profit.

The rest of your post is, while verbose, I am not arguing against. The problem the MAFIAA is fighting against is one they created themselves, by not understanding when they needed to.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Anonymous Coward]

While Kim may be greedy and potentially an asshole, he's going to win and is playing by rules far more legitimate then our current IP circus.

  Or take a look at the guys from Pirate Bay, locked in cages in solitary confinement. Are they winning the fight?

One guy from TPB is in a cage for activities unrelated to TPB. TPB is up & running. So yeah, big win from TPB POV.
Time after time Parties opposed to TPB come after it. TPB is still up & running all these years later.
If that's not a win then those words have no meaning.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

Neither was the US. The US was founded by people who believed in liberty and justice, strongly influenced by the Enlightenment.

They may have written the Constitution, but they are not the genetic stock of Puritans who came to the US to force their religion on others, as they were prevented from doing so in the UK.

And what country is not "broken" in your sense? Do let us know!

Fuck you. I don't want any other Americans moving here. You are bunch of assholes that will elect either Obama or Romney in a few days. Either way, you've proven yourself incompetent idiots. And it's very hard to be incompetent at being an idiot.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

Hence why I won the revolution by leaving the US. It's not fixable, so I moved some place that's better (most of the world at this point. I'd rather live in China than the US).

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

They may have written the Constitution, but they are not the genetic stock of Puritans who came to the US to force their religion on others, as they were prevented from doing so in the UK.

Oh, I have no love for the Puritans: they were a repressed and oppressive bunch. But they made up only a small percentage of the colonies and were more of a regional phenomenon. And they and others fled similarly oppressive Christian churches, like the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The problem wasn't Puritanism, it was the moral and political evil of political Christianity that had spread across Europe, and the solution to that was separation of church and state as realized in the US.

Fuck you. I don't want any other Americans moving here.

The real reason you don't want to tell us is because you know that the supposed paradise you talk about is really an oppressive, economically backwards place, and you don't want your delusions ripped apart by facts. (Based on your links, though, it seems that you simply live in Alaska and are somehow related to Christian missionary work.)

You are bunch of assholes that will elect either Obama or Romney in a few days.

As opposed to who? Name some world leaders that you actually respect, and why.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

Based on your links, though, it seems that you simply live in Alaska and are somehow related to Christian missionary work.

I am neither in Alaska, nor Christian. And yes, I don't need piles of slashdottians bashing my choice of a better place because they've never been out of their mom's basement, but it must be better than anywhere I could be outside the US. I've told others in the past here, and I just got insults and arguments. But thanks for your support anyway.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

And yes, I don't need piles of slashdottians bashing my choice of a better place

In different words, your choice of "better place" doesn't hold up to objective analysis; it is simply a quirky personal preference. But instead of saying "I prefer this kind of place, but I understand most Americans prefer America to be different", you become rude and insulting.

I am neither in Alaska, nor Christian

And that's why you are linked to "Romancing Alaska" and use the name of an Alaskan missionary site?

I think you're just being evasive and dishonest.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

I think you're just being evasive and dishonest.

Evasive? Yes. Dishonest? Nope. I moved to a place where for the same income as the US, I pay less taxes. I also have free health care. That should narrow it down, I've been told that there's only one country on the planet where that's true.

My picture was on Romancing Alaska last I looked, but I am not the site owner. He gets money from ads served on the site, and his stats show that the greatest single referrer to his site is Slashdot (yes, even ahead of Google). Though, since it looks like he pulled the Google adds (I just looked for the first time in years - and no, I don't see my picture on there anymore), there's not much reason to link to it here anymore. And I don't get the reference to an Alaskan missionary site.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[Xest]

Yes, and continue losing.

Because for all those hundreds of years they've been fighting it, information has only become more accessible, and more free.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[squiggleslash]

I don't know, I missed the cold war. The threat of communism was enough to ensure that politicians, business leaders, and other people in power didn't consider it acceptable to throw people out of work so that those in charge could get obscene raises they didn't need.

It sucked to live under communism. It was, however, good to live in a first world country that had it as an enemy. Islamist terrorism? That seems to have us going headlong into fascism.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

I moved to a place where for the same income as the US, I pay less taxes. I also have free health care. That should narrow it down, I've been told that there's only one country on the planet where that's true.

There are plenty of places in the world where that is true, from Cuba to Monaco to New Zealand. It's not hard to have lower taxes and free health care if you're a small country and lucky about your geographic situation. Plenty of nations are also happy to give tax breaks and other benefits to rich expatriates. That's not a sign of political or moral superiority, those nations are just piggy-backing on the success and power of other nations.

Incidentally, if you still have your US citizenship or have given it up recently, the fact that NZ has lower taxes doesn't help you, because you're required to pay the difference to the IRS.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

And I don't get the reference to an Alaskan missionary site.

MARC in Alaska (AK) is a missionary site. And you link to an Alaskan business run by someone also into Bible quoting.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

I'd never heard of Missionary Aviation Repair Center before you pointed me too it. Marc is my name, your google foo is weak. And yes, Nick is active in his church and does wear his religion on his sleeve. I've had plenty of aggressive Christian friends. I think sometimes they think they can save me, I'm like a lost puppy to save or fix. Yes, Marc is my real name, I added the AK on the end because I needed something because Marc was taken. And my last name is nearly unique, so I don't like using it, as it's very not anonymous.

Incidentally, if you still have your US citizenship or have given it up recently, the fact that NZ has lower taxes doesn't help you, because you're required to pay the difference to the IRS.

I get credit for taxes paid, and get to count some extra credits such that I don't have to pay the difference. Though it's a pain in the ass because I don't get records in an easy to use manner, so I have to back-calculate deductible items.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

I get credit for taxes paid, and get to count some extra credits such that I don't have to pay the difference.

There are no significant "extra credits" on your income tax you would get outside the US that you don't also get inside the US. If you don't owe US taxes, that means your income tax there is at least as high as in the US; that's not surprising since other nations usually have lower average incomes and higher progressivity.

And, of course, that's only income tax. If we stick with NZ as an example, overall tax burden is much higher than the US, salaries are lower for comparable jobs, and prices are higher too. Moving to NZ to save taxes and get "free" health care is financially a bad decision (of course, there are other reasons to move there, it's a beautiful country).

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

There are no significant "extra credits" on your income tax you would get outside the US that you don't also get inside the US.

Are you an American citizen living outside the US? If not, then I'll ignore you as an Internet expert (someone who is an expert because he read a website once). Because, from my information, you are wrong. But there's no point educating someone who doesn't want to be educated and will willfully discard the truth if it doesn't fit his opinion.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

Are you an American citizen living outside the US?

Yes. You either are not, or you are financially illiterate.

If not, then I'll ignore you as an Internet expert (someone who is an expert because he read a website once). Because, from my information, you are wrong. But there's no point educating someone who doesn't want to be educated and will willfully discard the truth if it doesn't fit his opinion.

That pretty much sums up you.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

You either are not, or you are financially illiterate.

Oh, well I read the rules such that they imply that the only reason a person would ever live outside the USA is for work, as nobody would ever want to leave a country that would elect Bush for a second term (or Obama for a second term, or worse, Romney). So I get to deduct a standard amount for living costs. Did you not know that housing costs can be deducted? I think you are the one that's financially illiterate.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

Oh, well I read the rules such that they imply that the only reason a person would ever live outside the USA is for work, as nobody would ever want to leave a country that would elect Bush for a second term

Your desire to leave the US is not in question. And now you're sitting in your exclusive little island paradise / tax haven like Marie Antoinette in her palace, saying to the rest of the world "let them eat cake!".

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

So I get to deduct a standard amount for living costs. Did you not know that housing costs can be deducted?

So? You get more of those kinds of deductions when you live in the US.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

Yes, but they are instead of, not on top of the standard deduction in the US. That and the US has no shared information with anyone else, and only looks when there are anomalies (a billionaire moves and taxes change drastically from one year to the next) to get subpoenas and such. So rounding can't be found unless you are investigated, unlike the US where they mini-audit everyone and full-audit some.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

I moved from the US, where everyone is as stupid as you, not to cut my taxes (I mentioned I was in the top 10% of wage earners, and that made me pay all of 10% of my income in federal income tax), but to get away from people like you.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[kenorland]

As I was saying: you're sitting in your exclusive little island paradise / tax haven like Marie Antoinette in her palace, saying to the rest of the world "let them eat cake!".

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[AK Marc]

What, you are just jealous that I moved to a place better than the USA in nearly every measurable manner?

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[shentino]

Thank you for pointing out that the only reason he's losing is because his enemies are cheating and getting away with it.

Re:It should be obvious whos internet will win.

[shentino]

Selective prosecution is pretty useful.

Inspired by prison

[Anonymous Coward]

I read about this a few weeks ago from the wired interview: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/

Was there any doubt he would not be hosting this in the U.S.? I'm not sure what the news is here.

Oblig Futurama

[Revotron]

"You can't shut us down. The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas!"

THIS GUY IS A BUSINESS GENIUS

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG

plus 2, troll)

[Anonymous Coward]

if you move a 7able won't be nstanding to underscore

Re:plus 2, troll)

[Anonymous Coward]

what? no goatse link? You're slipping, AC.

US IP Laws

[spottedkangaroo]

Seems like our IP laws are really helping our industries right now. Soon all data centers will be located out of the reach of *AA ?

Re:US IP Laws

[gstoddart]

Seems like our IP laws are really helping our industries right now. Soon all data centers will be located out of the reach of *AA ?

Out of reach? Given the way the US is exporting its IP laws with some serious diplomatic pressure ... if SOCOM can rustle up someone to go in and do a raid where they're not supposed to be, I wouldn't put that past the influence of the *AAs.

American foreign policy is in large part driven by what those guys want. To the point that documents written by industry are part of governmental briefings -- even if the conclusions in the document is entirely in the service of the interests of the *AAs.

Welcome to the oligarchy. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that it's the industry calling the shots, not the government.

Re:US IP Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the AAs are experiencing record profits and American media is more popular around the globe than it's ever been, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

Re:US IP Laws

[AK Marc]

Use a domain from Gabon and host the servers in Macau or Hong Kong. If the US storms them, they'll be starting WWIII. I'd say some place like Singapore for better connectivity, but they have more a record of surrendering than the French (though in their defense, it was when they were British administered).

Re:US IP Laws

[Kalriath]

MegaUpload was a Hong Kong company, and the US managed to get their assets seized by the HK government. So no, not at all.

Gabon .ga registry problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really not sure that .ga (Gabon) was the best choice - see: http://www.internetnews.me/2012/01/13/is-the-gabon-registry-offline/

America going downhill

[blackdragon07]

Once it was a thing of pride to live here in America, but now unless you have a stake in Big business and/or brainwashed by those in power you see its going downhill and i agree with allot of comments that before to long nothing will be hosted or even businesses being based here because of all the crap that's going on from Music companies inability to adapt to new technology to the coal/oil industry having a strangle hold on energy. I read on here the other day i believe that Sweden was using trash to make energy....this would be a great thing for big cities in America. Nothing will change because everyone in office is getting bought off by Big Business.

Re:America going downhill

[Anonymous Coward]

Once it was a thing of pride to live here in America

Just think how the rest of the world sees you.

America has become an insufferable bully, who is trying to make sure the rest of the world is toeing the line so their industries can continue to be profitable, even at the expense of innovation.

That and the fact that America will intervene anywhere there's enough oil, but nowhere else ... most of the rest of the world is getting tired of listening.

Re:America going downhill

[blackdragon07]

Not disagreeing as i think the same thing. I wish we would stop getting involved with all the crap we do! It's down right stupid anymore, and from things i read the world doesn't like us anymore and honestly can't blame them. Like i said its sad that America has fallen this much and done half the crap it has done over the last few years.

Re:America going downhill

[Anonymous Coward]

You can tell you've been educated here in the US too. Or perhaps you were talking about being given an allotment of comments?

Re:America going downhill

[Type44Q]

America will intervene anywhere there's enough oil, but nowhere else

It helps to produce opium; doesn't hurt to have a good spot for a pipeline, either...

Oh look he wants investors

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like yet another classic Kim Dotcom scam.

This guy isn't an internet hero, he is a piece of shit.

Re:Oh look he wants investors

[SuricouRaven]

He can be both. Dotcom vs the MPAA? Dick vs Asshole. Whoever wins, we win.

Re:Oh look he wants investors

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy isn't an internet hero, he is a piece of shit.

IMO, there are much better, non-fecal matter adjectives to describe Dotcom: annoying, vain, braggart, etc. However, that's neither here nor there...the big point is:

He wasn't a hero; now he has become an geopolitical internet martyr.

We are starting to build up a longer and longer line of "internet martyrs": Kevin Mitnick and Julian Assange to name just two (there are plenty of others).

What's interesting to me is that there will possibly be more unification of a techno-society because of the martyrs our governments are creating, which suggests we might be heading to a newer social structure. (Albeit it's in it's infancy...but it's seems that we are starting to see it emerging...)

Re:Oh look he wants investors

[serviscope_minor]

Whoever wins, we win.

Not even slightly.

It's a normal asshole verses one of the biggest douche-bags of all time.

It's clearly better for the MPAA to loose because they are much much worse.

Anyway, is he an asshole? I had a paid up megaupload account which I only used for legal stuff. It worked really well.

Re:Oh look he wants investors

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you childish kids seem to think that the world runs on black and white tape.

There are always levels of dickishness that are acceptable. As is anger, sadness, jealousy and all other negatives you can think of.
Likewise, too much positives is bad too.

Re:Oh look he wants investors

[SuricouRaven]

Sort of. He made his fortune in shady businesses, playing right on the edge of legal and illegal.

Re:Oh look he wants investors

[dunkelfalke]

You won't get a suspended sentence on just being on the edge of legal and illegal. He had two of them. Suspended sentences are seen as more serious in Germany because most people who aren't considered dangerous will get a suspended sentence if their sentence is under two years prison time.

Oblig Serenity

[nevermore94]

There is no news. There is only the truth of the signal.
You can't stop the signal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

See this is why i oppose weakening the control that the us has over the internet. Only the USA stands for freeedom.

I guess this guy has enough money, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... read this if you want to know what it's like to NOT have the kind of money he does: The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System.

In a bizarre coincidence, the guy has almost the same name...

"We"

[Anonymous Coward]

We are going back to our old ways of isolating ourselves from the world because of the greed of a very few

If it is only the very few causing the problem, then how is it possible that "we" (meaning all of "us") are causing the problem?

Let's call a spade a spade here. A government is NOT the people, and the people are NOT the government. If that was true, then logically, government wouldn't need guns -- because "we" would already be following the principles that "we" believe in.

Wheres the old stuff going?

[NinjaTekNeeks]

I haven't followed the case very closely but what ended up happening to the content that existed on the megaupload site? Did Dotcom get his servers back?

Also, if this service works it will be much easier that uploading truecrypt volumes. Which I will probably keep doing anyway.

Re:Wheres the old stuff going?

[Spy Handler]

Carpathia still has the warez on their servers. Which are still frozen by DoJ.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/10/05/report-seized-megaupload-data-be-subject-future-us-court-hearing

Re:Have to say...No safe room needed.

[BoRegardless]

I personally think this is the answer for all cloud storage. You encrypt data before it leaves and the server, God only knows where, stores your stuff. You can access it or your friends you give access to can get the data. Big deal. If Kim doesn't do it, who else does?

Thus if Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and a lot of other big companies can offer cloud storage, what is different about Me.ga except that Kim doesn't have lobbyists in Washington, DC?

The holding of encrypted data on a server is just anonymous data.

When....

[Jintsui]

is that fat ass going to take the hint. No matter where he goes or where he hides, they will still come after him.

[US] is not safe for ... any business

[mounthood]

From the page on server limitations:

Unfortunately we can't work with hosting companies based in the United States. Safe harbour for service providers via the Digital Millenium Copyright Act has been undermined by the Department of Justice with its novel criminal prosecution of Megaupload. It is not safe for cloud storage sites or any business allowing user generated content to be hosted on servers in the United States or on domains like .com / .net. The US government is frequently seizing domains without offering service providers a hearing or due process.

When people ask "why use me.ga?" they're going to hear the Kim DotCom story. Eventually it'll be taken for granted that Hollywood has corrupted the Justice Department. This could be the PR move that turns ordinary people against Hollywood.

Re:[US] is not safe for ... any business

[Anonymous Coward]

As a USA Citizen I apologize for the way that our WHORING politicians suck on the teat of greedy Hollywood. I can assure you that I have NOT voted for any politician that is currently in office. To get these current old fogies out of office we some how have to convince the current voters to vote these old hollywood prostitutes out of office. Maybe we can convince the newer voters to elect some other people??

Re:[US] is not safe for ... any business

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Hollywood is turning the whole Kim-Dotcom-Mega-Upload saga into a movie - et voila: their version of the story will be the one which is remembered!

Re:[US] is not safe for ... any business

[Anonymous Coward]

There's lots and lots of things in the world that are not computer technology or the Internet. If you can keep this in your head while reading this kind of article you'll see it's just fluff work to get eyeballs like yours on websites like theirs.

Re:[US] is not safe for ... any business

[BitZtream]

No ordinary person who heres the full story about Megaupload is going to be on Megaupload's side.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the guy made a living breaking and skirting the law.

For ever legitimate file on megaupload there were 20 that weren't legitimate and everyone in the business knew it.

If he was even a little bit about running a legitimate business he wouldn't be encrypting everything. This really is an instance of looking guilty because you are guilty.

Re:[US] is not safe for ... any business

[shentino]

I dunno, but why pick sides?

I personally think that they BOTH suck.

Huh...

[koan]

I get the feeling the RIAA, MPAA and the rest of the anti-piracy morons are holding us back, dragging us down.

At some point I stop caring about your "intellectual property" and "media licenses" and long for you to disappear.

sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate abuse of copyright laws as much as the next guy, but I can't help feeling that getting rid of the rules all together can't be the solution. In the end, what's going to happen is that I will write a book, some jerk will upload it to me.ga, and then Kim Dotcom will make a ton of cash off of it while I get jack. Screw him. He's making money by selling our stuff.

Re:sigh

[AK Marc]

He's screwing you over because a book you might theoretically write 100 years from now has already been shared?

re: encryption and legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

I just pointed out to a friend of mine in I.T., last week, that it seems odd how U.S. govt. largely forgot about their interest in controlling encryption. I mean, it wasn't THAT long ago that they were still forcing Microsoft to make a separate version of Internet Explorer because it was a federal crime to export it with 128-bit encryption capabilities in it. And remember how worked up they got over the Pretty Good Privacy software when it was first released to the public?

But despite CPUs getting many times more powerful and the "common man" encrypting things with 1024 bit encryption in many cases as default settings in programs, you don't really hear a peep out of govt. about it these days.

I have to assume this means they're capable of breaking it on-demand, so they're happy to let people use the stuff freely and get a false sense of security. Maybe there's a back-door or flaw in the math the NSA knows about, or they simply have such massive super-computer data centers at their disposal now, they can brute force break it? I don't know ... but it's HIGHLY unusual for government to just quit concerning itself with something it was really paranoid about just years earlier, when it purports to make sure they can't view the contents of communications between people.

Still trying to hide things

[smooth wombat]

Ah yes, now we have it! Now we'll encrypt what our user's upload and for others to download because then we're not responsible for anything. Yeah, that's it.

Now our user's have no fear that their legitimate files will be seen. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

See, the issue isn't that we're trying to hide anything, because everything here is legal and above board, no, the real issue is that we're offering a service for people to store all their legitimate files safe from prying eyes. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

Honest, that's all we're doing. Just a place to store all your legitimate files. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

We could offer a no encryption service, but we need to protect the privacy of our user's and their legitimate needs. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

So again, just so everyone is clear on this, we're offering this service so people can store and trade their legitimate files without fear of anyone finding out what those legitimate files are. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

Re:Still trying to hide things

[serviscope_minor]

What's wrong with that?

Re:Still trying to hide things

[countach]

Well, a lot of users really do need the encryption for their private files. And those who don't... well the oppressive and complicated copyright laws and corporations suing each other left and right means that even 100% legit companies need plausible deniability to protect themselves. It's not just the wink wink of allowing infringers, the powers that be really do want to make life a misery for even legitimate sharers.

Entirely predictable

[JonathanCombe]

I've commented before that increasing surveillance of the Internet and increasingly draconian laws is just going to push more people to use encryption so that Governments and other agencies cannot see the data that is being transmitted. Even if they go after ISPs you will never stop people exchanging files - it is easy to set up a local Wifi network amongst neighbours, for instance.

Sssshhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sssshhhh! That is where he is planning on hosting his new servers. Got to be at least 12U of server space up in there.

Vote obama MAKE it better ( lol )

[Anonymous Coward]

4 more years a hollywood in power and i bet its game over for IT in the usa.
SO vote for obuma and tank for the next 50 years.

Domain name/public internet access

[nurb432]

Is the wrong way to go. It provides several points of failure that are hard to get around, and has proven to be vulnerable time and time again as we lose sites like Demonoid and Library.nu ( and countless others before them ).

Best bet is to go underground with something like Freenet or I2P. Sure, it may not be as 'transparent', but that is fixable by creating brain dead installers and multiple public access points. ( then you play whack-a-mole as those are shut down ). The days of the 'open net' is limited.

This way there is nothing specific to shut down.

Of course if there is a money trail, and there will be with Kim, that is still vulnerable.

Re:Domain name/public internet access

[kenorland]

Kim DotCom cannot get rich with Freenet or other such technologies. Whatever he (or anybody else) comes up with as a business automatically has a single point of failure: the people running it.

Kim DotCom is going down again

[viperidaenz]

Copyright infringement of Daft Punk.

Re: encryption and legislation

[Pseudonym Authority]

Possibly. But encryption is needed for internet commerce, which is worth $684B in the US. If there is anything that talks louder than the military, it's money.

Re: encryption and legislation

[petermgreen]

Another possible explanation is that they gave up because they realised trying to control the export of encryption techology that was already well-known outside the US was pointless and only served to hurt US buisnesses.

Also if there is anything the past decade or so has taught us it's that even if the underlying encyrption algorithms are sound the cryptosystems built round them often aren't. SSL is a good example, it relies on certificate authorities to determine whether you are really communicating with the server you think you are. I'm quite sure that if the US government needed a cert for a particular domain to use in a MITM attack they would have no trouble getting it.