Dotcom Wins Right To Sue NZ Government

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dotcom Wins Right To Sue NZ Government

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 6, 2013 @10:30PM from the time-to-sue dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A Court of Appeal judgement released today has ruled in favor of Kim Dotcom and will let him sue the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) alongside New Zealand Police. During the High Court case, it emerged that the GCSB had been illegally spying on Dotcom prior to the raid on his Coatesville mansion, on behalf of the FBI, who now wants the Megaupload millionaire extradited to face trial in the US over copyright infringements."

127 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

His mansion by one+eyed+kangaroo · 2013-03-06 22:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

Apropos of nothing at all, I was fortunate to have a client drive me past Kim Dotcoms mansion in a fashionably distant and hilly area North of Auckland a little while ago. It was, he said with evident disdain, a "rented mansion". I've no idea how true that is.
The main gate over which heavily armed special forces apparently had to pass, is barely a metre high, and surrounded by... no fence at all.
When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
1. Re:His mansion by Marful · 2013-03-06 22:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
  It's been that way for over almost a decade now.
  
  DHS just dropped ~$100 million on a bunch of APCs, school Districts are buying assault weapons for their on-campus police forces and the LAPD has been known to send out swat team members to deal with parking tickets.
  
  The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy. The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.
  
  http://www.cato.org/raidmap
2. Re:His mansion by TFAFalcon · 2013-03-06 22:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can't wait for a jury to find someone was justified in shooting a cop without warning, since the other guy was wearing a uniform and so the accused can obviously claim it was self defense.
3. Re:His mansion by macraig · 2013-03-06 22:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
  How Cops Became Soldiers: An Interview with Police Militarization Expert Radley Balko. There ya go.
4. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  It is rented cause the NZ government didn't allow him to buy it.
  Now that he's been living there for long enough, they can no longer keep him from buying the mansion... Except by making sure he's got no access to his money.
5. Re:His mansion by isorox · 2013-03-06 23:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
  New Zealand is about as Eastern as you can get.
6. Re:His mansion by one+eyed+kangaroo · 2013-03-06 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Great link - thanks for sharing.
7. Re:His mansion by Mashiki · 2013-03-06 23:31 · Score: 2
  
  New Zealand is about as Eastern as you can get.
  East and west isn't a definition of location, it's a definition on government, society, and ways of social planning and thinking. There are distinct social and economic differences between the way policing works for example in Japan compared to Canada. And even regionally, just like here in the west from Canada to the US. But within the 'west' things are traditionally done all in the same way. If you leave a job in government, military, politics, or policing in say the US or Canada, and head to Europe you're not going to land in culture shock. You will if you did in Japan, S.Korea or China for example.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
8. Re:His mansion by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-03-06 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
  . . . since Hollywood lobbyists have convinced the government that Pirates like Dotcom are terrorists, and IP theft is an attack on the economy . . .
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
9. Re:His mansion by Hentes · 2013-03-06 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  What's the point of having a gate without a fence?
10. Re:His mansion by Sique · 2013-03-06 23:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Pointing out, where the private property begins.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
11. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  From where? The world's a sphere you fool.
12. Re:His mansion by ed_j_webb · 2013-03-06 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  What a great example of Begging the Question: "When did the shift towards militarized police forces begin in America?" which begs the question: "Has there been a shift towards militarized police?"
13. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 23:53 · Score: 0
  
  More specifically, the line between East and West was drawn down the middle of Germany.
14. Re:His mansion by RaceProUK · 2013-03-07 00:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  From where?
  The Prime Meridian. Dividing East from West since 1851.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
15. Re:His mansion by isorox · 2013-03-07 00:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  DHS just dropped ~$100 million on a bunch of APCs,
  Department of Health and Safety bought some UPSes?
  
  school Districts are buying assault weapons for their on-campus police forces
  You've got a fucked up country if you have an on-campus police force
  
  The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy. The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.
  Does it really?
  There have been 22 police officers killed in the line of duty in the UK since 2000 Half of those were traffic collisions (accidents or delibete), so I'm not sure how a SWAT team would solve that. That's a 1 in 90,000 chance of dying in the line of duty each year.
  New Zealand has 7 deaths (half accidental) since 2000 (1 in 19000)
  Canada had 5 deaths in 2012, 4 of which were vehicle related (1 in 13000)
  The U.S has had 19 deaths SO FAR THIS YEAR. Last year was about 130, out of 794,000 officers (1 in 6000)
  The U.S. is an anomaly, don't lump the western world into your dysfunctional society.
16. Re:His mansion by djmurdoch · 2013-03-07 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  IP theft is an attack on the economy ...
  What else would it be? It's a violation of a government granted monopoly. If that's not an attack on the economy, what is it?
17. Re:His mansion by macraig · 2013-03-07 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  What a great example of begging to be considered unobservant.
18. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  Do, you like commas?
19. Re:His mansion by harvey+the+nerd · 2013-03-07 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  In the next game round of global conflict, Western governments appear to be choosing to be the fascist forces. Literally.
20. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Use a bit of empiricism to figure it out, you fucking prick. Many departments in the US now allow (and even mandate) that officers have either an AR-15 or full blown M-16 in the trunk of their car. As the anti-gun lobby has been so eager to point out to 2nd Amendment supporters: those are weapons of war meant for killing large volumes of people quickly and efficiently.
21. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  >When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
  Since before you were born.
  What rock have you been living under?
  Police forces all over the place have been notoriously corrupt since forever.
  Not to mention banks, people think this banking nonsense is a recent thing. It has been happening since before any of us were even born, our parents, our grandparents and theirs.
  Large groups with no oversight always tend towards corruption. It is how things go.
  This is why Open Government and Open Banking has been crushed every time it has been brought up.
  None of them want that, not just because there is a lot of dodgy back-alley deals that go on between countries to keep the peace / banks literally all the damn time regardless of who is in power at the time, but because they have dodgy internal deals as well. Things that keep rich people richer than those in the middle and lesser classes.
  We people are peasants to them, hell, ants, you can forget the peas entirely. We just work and work to get them more money so they can snort cocaine through their EYES every night while fornicating with lobsters.
  It won't change any time soon. Not until people actually get a grip and realize that the idea of Government has failed and needs to be scrapped and redone from scratch so there is oversight of everything. Peer oversight, nobody is the top. You can't have a top without the top getting corrupt.
  Those with power always abuse it. Always. Even if their intentions are Good. It is still abuse even if it is good in the end, such as abusing peoples fear of death and utter pointlessness of life to keep them calm, AKA most religions. It does keep them calm for the most part, outside of those stupid extremists. Still as much lies as "santi claus" or the tooth fairy in the end, just these stories are for children trapped in adults bodies, they need to be protected from how ugly and horrible life is, just like those who need to be hidden from the horrors of international relations.
  People like to think the world is all nice and happy, is it FUCK. It is a stones-throw away from Cold War 2. If resources get too strained again, I'm going to the mountains. You can all have your nucular wars and year long winters for a few years. Mount St.Helens was bad enough.
22. Re:His mansion by Cwix · 2013-03-07 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think by APC he means Armored Personnel Carrier. Basically a tank without a main gun.
  Also yes, many of the universities have their own police forces. In fact in my city they can even pull you over outside their jurisdiction. You do not need to even be on the campus, just near it.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
23. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the country, but the "overlords" who are FU. Check your country, see if the overlords are the same, or if they are acting the same. Then guess why you are headed in the same direction as we are. If a politician will lie to get the job, what makes you so sure he's going to work for you?
24. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  The answer to your question is yes. They are purchasing more weapons, armored vehicles, drones, etc.
  Pay more attention please. This would be obvious to you if you actually paid attention to whats going on in the world.
25. Re:His mansion by Joce640k · 2013-03-07 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  which begs the question: "Has there been a shift towards militarized police?"
  When they have their own tanks? I think the answer might be "yes".
  
  --
  No sig today...
26. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  No, that's not begging the question at all. You could say that it raises the question: "Has there been a shift towards militarized police?"; but only if you were unaware of the shift in the first place.
27. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  Why not distinct between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world ?
  Sure the cold war has been over for a while but in this case it seems less confusing to refer to 1st world nations instead of western ones when you include New Zealand.
  But even thats not quite fitting, since "western countries" seems to be too general. Why not refer to (first world) anglophone countries here ?
28. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  It is rented cause the NZ government didn't allow him to buy it.
  Now that he's been living there for long enough, they can no longer keep him from buying the mansion... Except by making sure he's got no access to his money.
  Speaking of his money, I'm glad the copyright lobbies (through their bought-and-paid-for government proxies) are finally picking on someone with enough money to defend himself. The expenses of a lawsuit aren't likely to ruin Mr. Dotcom's life the way they would the average filesharer's. Whether he's liked or not, I am hoping he wins because the precedent of a victory will help reverse some of the obsessive copyright-related madness we keep seeing from an industry that refuses to cope with the Information Age.
  
  One can dream of a change to US law where statutory damages are eliminated and monied plaintiffs can only sue infringers for actual demonstrated damages. You know, like the way almost every other tort is supposed to work. If you do $3000 of property damage to my car, I don't get to sue you for millions. Some of us still have a quaint notion of justice that involves reason and proportion. There was never a good reason why imaginary property with a monetary value should be treated so differently from tangible property with a monetary value.
29. Re:His mansion by Charliemopps · 2013-03-07 01:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  As someone that was involved with a legal case with campus police, I can assure you that United States Universities do in fact have their own police forces. Not only that but they are afforded special treatment in the court system. They not only enforce the ordinances on campus... they write them. Campuses are often HUGE and take up hundreds or thousands of acres, even if the buildings themselves don't. People like to donate land to universities in their wills. Because the campus police can write their own ordinances, they do so at will. This was what my court case was about. The changed a rule the same day I was charged, just so they could charge me... or at least "someone" and I was the unlucky sap. They were trying to prove a point. But I fought it so vigorously (because I was furious) the case wasn't resolved for almost a year and nearly everyone forgot about it. I lost in the end and the Judge thought the whole thing was ridiculous so my fine was almost nothing.
  The one thing I learned in college? Fuck the police.
30. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Has there been a shift towards militarized police?
  Yes. If you didn't know this, please stop looking at porn long enough to catch some news.
31. Re:His mansion by isorox · 2013-03-07 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why not distinct between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world ?
  Sure the cold war has been over for a while but in this case it seems less confusing to refer to 1st world nations instead of western ones when you include New Zealand.
  But even thats not quite fitting, since "western countries" seems to be too general. Why not refer to (first world) anglophone countries here ?
  When I see "Anglophone", I think U.S, Australia, New Zealand, and a few tiny British colonies (Pitcairn, Falklands, St Helena, etc)
  When I see "Western", I tend to think of the above, plus EU and Israel
  When I see "Eastern", I tend to think of China, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.
  When it comes to First World, I'd include those "Western", but also places like Japan, (South) Korea, Singapore, etc. Third world includes Rwanda, Afghanistan, Texas, Pakistan, Columbia.
  The majority of countries don't fit in either. Can you really claim that Shanghai is in a third world country? But then rural china is hardly first world. Tricky.
32. Re:His mansion by cdrudge · 2013-03-07 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Both the universities I went to had police forces that were just extensions of the local law enforcement. One was for the county sheriff, the other for the city police. I'm not sure whose budget their paycheck came from, but they had the same authority off campus that they had on. They were just rarely found off campus.
33. Re:His mansion by Phrogman · 2013-03-07 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  It should only *really* matter if it represents a significant loss of actual income. Something that has yet to be shown to be true, but I believe has shown false in a number of studies.
  "IP" is such a nebulous concept to begin with, but thanks to Hollywood and the Big Media lobby, the penalties for violating their rules are far far in excess of what is justified.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
34. Re:His mansion by Demonantis · 2013-03-07 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  At least some university campuses in Canada have a police detachment, but its more about not having the police come in for the small stuff that university students seem to like to get in trouble for(underage drinking). I doubt they would respond to major incidents.
35. Re:His mansion by Talderas · 2013-03-07 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  Specifically they bought MRAPs. In other words, the DHS is outfitting their grunts better than the US military.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
36. Re:His mansion by Talderas · 2013-03-07 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hey. When a dude steals a tank and drives around LA, how are the police supposed to stop that? /sarcasm
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
37. Re:His mansion by weilawei · 2013-03-07 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  UMass Amherst has the largest State Police department in Mass. They have all the gear, assault weapons, and helicopters. For the purpose of riot control. UMass Amherst is a city, written into the law as such. They are the single largest armed military force in this state. Source: Me. Because that's where I'm from.
38. Re:His mansion by weilawei · 2013-03-07 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  That should've been, "For the purposes of riot control, ..." And here's the text of the law. "Section 1. If five or more persons, being armed with clubs or other dangerous weapons, or if ten or more persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled in a city or town, the mayor and each of the aldermen of such city, each of the selectmen of such town, every justice of the peace living in any such city or town, any member of the city, town, or state police and the sheriff of the county and his deputies shall go among the persons so assembled, or as near to them as may be with safety, and in the name of the commonwealth command all persons so assembled immediately and peaceably to disperse; and if they do not thereupon immediately and peaceably disperse, each of said magistrates and officers shall command the assistance of all persons there present in suppressing such riot or unlawful assembly and arresting such persons. For the purposes of this section, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst shall be considered to be a town."
39. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Ironically, New Zealand also has territory on the farest edges of Western Hemisphere.
40. Re:His mansion by tehcyder · 2013-03-07 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  Use a bit of empiricism to figure it out, you fucking prick. Many departments in the US now allow (and even mandate) that officers have either an AR-15 or full blown M-16 in the trunk of their car. As the anti-gun lobby has been so eager to point out to 2nd Amendment supporters: those are weapons of war meant for killing large volumes of people quickly and efficiently.
  And of course that has nothing to do with the fact that so many US civilians also have AR-15s and that criminals therefore have access to these and more powerful weapons?
  I know here on slashdot the gun-fans think that the police/military shouldn't have weapons that the ordinary citizen can't, but presumably you'd all still accept that they should have at least equivalent firepower?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
41. Re:His mansion by tehcyder · 2013-03-07 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why can't the NZ government deport him? Is he a NZ citizen now or something?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
42. Re:His mansion by serialband · 2013-03-07 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Some universities have State Police running the show, which basically means that they have jurisdiction all over the state. They generally call in the local city police and assist if it is more city related, but they have full jurisdiction.
43. Re:His mansion by steelfood · 2013-03-07 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.
  That's because the consequence of killing a harmless innocent is nil. It is non-existent. Even when the action is targeted, the police get off scott free. It's part of the job, they say, a job hazard. They can't do their jobs if they're busy figuring out who's shooting at them and who's running away. Best thing to do is shoot first and ask questions later.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
44. Re:His mansion by serialband · 2013-03-07 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
  The terms were originally assigned to geopolitical alignment, not wealth.
  1st World = US & Western Europe & its allies.
  2nd World = USSR & its allies
  3rd World = other Countries.
  Most of the 3rd world countries happened to be impoverished, and people have come to identify 3rd world as impoverished. China is technically a 2nd World nation along with Russia.
45. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  You've got a fucked up country if you have an on-campus police force
  Oxford University had its own police when I attended. Cambridge still does. They pre-date modern police forces and, I suspect, were viewed as a symbol of the university's autonomy from the state. I got the impression that in recent years they were more concerned with protecting foolish students from the full rigour of the criminal justice system than persecuting them. Quite different to America's paramilitaries.
46. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  He rented the mansion because the NZ government wouldn't let him buy it.
47. Re:His mansion by oursland · 2013-03-07 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it was San Diego. And they solved it the way they solve all armed (and many unarmed) confrontations, by shooting the guy.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson
48. Re:His mansion by Talderas · 2013-03-07 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  After he beached himself on a concrete divider.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
49. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  To put the militarization of the US into perspective, here is the list of all *29* police officers killed by a criminal act - in the entire history of New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty. BTW, Police in New Zealand still do not -in general- carry firearms while on duty.
50. Re:His mansion by Sique · 2013-03-07 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  And this has to do with libertarianism exactly how?
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
51. Re:His mansion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  ... since the other guy was wearing a uniform ...
  
  That requires the court to say 3 things:
  1) Police are subject to the same laws as citizens
  2) Citizens have rights while facing policemen
  3) Police duties must 'serve and protect' citizens
52. Re:His mansion by AK+Marc · 2013-03-07 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Department of Health and Safety bought some UPSes?
  Department of Homeland Security (customs and immigration) bought tanks with passenger seats.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
53. Re:His mansion by AK+Marc · 2013-03-07 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  In Texas, there is no such concept of "jurisdiction". Every officer is sworn to the state, so their jurisdiction is the entire state. The university cops are empowered the same as the city cops near them. For practical reasons, you stay near home, but for legal reasons, an El Paso officer currently off duty in Texarkana (About as far apart as you can get in Texas, 800+ miles) has the same legal powers as a local on-duty officer.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
54. Re:His mansion by AK+Marc · 2013-03-07 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the country, but the "overlords" who are FU. Check your country, see if the overlords are the same, or if they are acting the same.
  
  Only if we vote National.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
55. Re:His mansion by AK+Marc · 2013-03-07 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  The one thing I learned in college? Fuck the police.
  Bah, shoulda listened to more NWA growing up.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
56. Re:His mansion by cheater512 · 2013-03-07 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Something like that.
  Its legal for the NZ police to spy on foreigners.
  He isn't one any more which is why he is suing. Hence this entire article.
57. Re:His mansion by AK+Marc · 2013-03-07 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Someone finally uses "begging the question" correctly, and some A/C has to correct him for it.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
58. Re:His mansion by AK+Marc · 2013-03-07 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  First world - industrialized.
  Third world - drink the water and die
  
  Second world - gone.
  
  Not the original definitions, but close enough for today's use.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
59. Re:His mansion by godglike · 2013-03-07 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  GCSB. Government Communications Security Bureau. NZ's CIA/MI5/MI6 equivalent
  The police got the spooks to do it, presumably because police snooping would have needed permission from a judge.
  But GCSB can spy on foreigners freely, which makes it all legal. This reasoning has been lambasted on billboards by a beer company.
  So now the GCSB is facing ugly questions about what is they actually do and why we even need spooks since they are just a police dirty trick and tool for the US.
60. Re:His mansion by mug+funky · 2013-03-07 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  every area of Auckland is distant and hilly...
61. Re:His mansion by chihowa · 2013-03-07 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  I got the impression that in recent years they were more concerned with protecting foolish students from the full rigour of the criminal justice system than persecuting them.
  That's my impression of US campus police, too. I'm sure there are anecdotes that contradict this, but in my experience you really have to fuck up for them to get involved. Campus cops always seemed to me the perfect manifestation of police. Super reasonable and helpful, not interested in hassling people just to satisfy their power trip, but on the scene if actual bad stuff was happening.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
62. Re:His mansion by razorshark · 2013-03-07 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy.
  Commander William Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
  
  --
  Raenex is a dickhead
63. Re:His mansion by KingBenny · 2013-03-10 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  when was it ever not like that ? It all depends on who you point your middle finger at in what they, or you and i would call demo cracy ... something i hear is invented by george washington according to some, which explains why it's a bit crooked then i suppose ...
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
What a farce by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 22:40 · Score: 1

Everyone involved in this case on both sides of the ocean should be strung up from a very tall tree.
It's the only way they won't do it again to someone else.
1. Re:What a farce by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 22:57 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know which is more pathetic. The corrupt officials or their utter incompetence that got them caught. Sorry, found, not caught.
2. Re:What a farce by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  Or the people that can't be bothered to get up their lazy asses and participate in the political system to fight over issues they think are important ?
  With more "ordinary" people willing to participate in municipial and regional politics you will see new parties grow and eventually get a greater variety of politicians to vote for. Of course that requires some more work for the voter to figure out what those people stand for, when they get to choose but its necessary.
  If the people are unhappy with the results of their democratic system its their own fault for collectively not putting enough effort into it.
3. Re:What a farce by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  What a load of bullshit.
  The National government have long known the way to power is to polarise certain issues, and dismiss or bury others. They've got one hell of a spin team, and the be absolutely blunt, most of the population aren't educated or critical enough to be able to realise what's happening. There are those who do, but for the most part people are too easily deceived by smarmy one-liners and put-downs.
  Take, for example, one particular gentleman who was looking for work. He'd been unemployed for 12 years at that point. Over here, there's an idea that if you've been unemployed for a couple of years, it's because you're unemployable.
  As he tried to explain the situation that he was in, and in fact every time he started to talk, the MC started shouting at him to "Get a job!" Obviously it just wasn't that simple, but the fool wouldn't let the man talk. The audience went nuts, supporting him and ignoring the man who needed to be heard.
  I don't have any illusions that this idiocy is restricted to New Zealand, but so many of us think that we are this great and mighty nation, without equal.
  I should point out that this unemployed guy was looking for work under the previous National government, during the 1990s. Unemployment has recently become as bad as it was then, but in the intervening years it was significantly lower. National spend a lot of time working on the public perception that the unemployed are the enemy, and that work is there - they're just too lazy to find it - even after being forced to admit that work isn't there.
4. Re:What a farce by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  If you have been out of work for 12 years your doing something wrong. I'll admit that it might not be with person and that it could be they can't find work because of things that shouldn't prevent them from finding work. For example they left work to raise a kid for a few years and then nobody would hire them thereafter despite have 10+ years experience. However that seems to me to be an exscuse to 1. go back to school 2. start a business of your own 3. find a job in an area where there high demand.
5. Re:What a farce by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  most of the population aren't educated or critical enough to be able to realise what's happening
  
  idiocy
  So its a bunch of pathetic citizens that as a group don't put enough effort in, are unable to do it any differently and also fail to see why thats a bad thing ?
  Exactly where was the bullshit in the GP ?
  If those people can't be bothered to understand and think critically about political topics or are unable to do so and as a group can't improve thing...
  Well its their fault for not putting enough effort into the system. One way of changing that would be getting people to spend more time trying to understand those
  topics and some of them to even actively participate.
  Once politicial discussions are part of your dinner table culture you'll get better informed voters and more participation.
6. Re:What a farce by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Personally, I would rather spend my limited free time improving upon myself and my relationships than investing enormous amounts of time researching the never-ending bullshit that is our political system, with the seemingly misguided sense that voters actually make a difference in the system that has been established. Those that are, and have been looking 'down' at us from their mountains of 'power' and 'wealth' will never allow real change to take place in our political/economic system unless first receiving their blessings. Giant douche vs terd sandwich, anyone? The only change that can be had is from within.
  Furthermore, Left, Right, Conservative, Libertarian... blah blah blah. These are mere labels that attempt to categorize humans into an "us vs them" mentality. How could two (or more) people ever consent to completely agree on all points necessary to categorize themselves into one of these labels, and more importantly be OK with that distinction? Wouldn't it be better to look at things with an unbiased set of eyes at all times, and instead of narrowly categorizing people, see them as EVERYTHING at once? We are infinite, however we often lose sight of this~
  For me, at least, I am not looking to change the world. I am more concerned with changing myself -- for this life is mine and my own. I could NEVER speak on behalf of someone else. We are divine creatures with unlimited potential. Why utilize my precious energies trying to manipulate and mold my surroundings to my liking? Instead, I choose to observe my, and your divinity through loving eyes. There is SO much more to this life than what we see around us with our limited set of senses, from which we dictate our reality -- a reality which we create for ourselves for a purpose. Find your purpose, and lovingly disregard the distractions ;)
Hemispheres... by DMiax · 2013-03-06 23:21 · Score: 1

I know what you are saying, but you may want to reconsider calling New Zealand "western", at least out of respect for the old sailors and explorers that helped map the globe through long travels and considerable danger.
1. Re:Hemispheres... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  Greographically speaking, East and West are all relative to where you stand. From where I stand (France), New Zealand is quite as much eastern as it is western.
2. Re:Hemispheres... by Cwix · 2013-03-07 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  I see your point, and find it ridiculous and pointless. Why would I pay respects to long dead explorers?
  I find much more value in being understood by others then by fighting to redefine a word.
  But if thats what you want to do, then carry on tilting at windmills.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
3. Re:Hemispheres... by DMiax · 2013-03-07 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  We adopted a convention of two hemispheres, Eastern and Western divided by the Prime Meridian. But that is not why the OP was calling NZ western. He/she did it because it has a similar culture to the US, as if that makes it a better country in terms of human rights. And that is quite definitely annoying.
4. Re:Hemispheres... by causality · 2013-03-07 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But that is not why the OP was calling NZ western. He/she did it because it has a similar culture to the US, as if that makes it a better country in terms of human rights.
  There was a time when it did mean that. Ask your grandparents or your oldest living relative about that, maybe they will be old enough to remember. It was definitely a long time ago. Now we in the "Western nations" do the very same things we used to look down on "Communist" countries for doing. That includes things like imprisonment without trial, secret FISA courts, summary executions of citizens, etc.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
5. Re: Hemispheres... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  If we use "similar culture to the US" as the benchmark, many of us in Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand will no longer want to use the term.
6. Re:Hemispheres... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but Socialism is dead so your Capitalist masters are happy now.
7. Re:Hemispheres... by causality · 2013-03-07 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but Socialism is dead so your Capitalist masters are happy now.
  If that's what you think the decay of a nation is about, your perspective is incredibly shallow and self-limited.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
8. Re:Hemispheres... by causality · 2013-03-07 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  I see your point, and find it ridiculous and pointless. Why would I pay respects to long dead explorers?
  I find much more value in being understood by others then by fighting to redefine a word. But if thats what you want to do, then carry on tilting at windmills.
  I appreciate the succinct, eloquent manner in which you stated that.
  
  I may just quote you on it (with attribution of course) the next time discussion degrades into another one of these weak "but languages evolve over time" bullshit episodes.
  
  Of course, "languages evolve over time" is almost always code for "I can't be bothered to learn to do things correctly, besides everyone is a winner and no one is ever wrong or mistaken if they just weasel out of admitting it". Perhaps that phrase has been used legitimately by someone who is not too prideful/weak-hearted to admit error, but I've never personally witnessed it.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
9. Re:Hemispheres... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  There was a time when it did mean that.
  
  Ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah, thats a good one. Just as one of many examples of how untrue that is, have you ever done any reading into how union organizers and other rabble rousers were treated in the early part of the 20th century and before? The cops didn't bother with all the fancy loopholes of todays legal system like FISA courts, extraordinary rendition or grand juries. If you were lucky they busted down the doors of your meeting and beat you and your comrades to within and inch of your lives. If you were not, the cops would burn down your meeting hall all together or simply get the local militia to put down your strike by force.
  
  I would highly recommend The Twentieth Century: A People's History by Howard Zinn. There was never any golden age of America that we have so sadly fallen from. It has always been the same imperial brutality from slavery and stealing of indigenous land to the prison industrial complex and the police state.
Round and round we go by mrbester · 2013-03-06 23:44 · Score: 1

Doesn't this make the appeal against the extradition stronger? Even given the minimal amount of evidence required to pass an extradition hearing doesn't the fact that this evidence is declared to have been obtained illegally render that evidence unusable?
Or is that just the perfect world view?

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
From the USA, it's West. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 23:45 · Score: 0

So, really, you're promoting European Universality by claiming NZ is east, and thereby pouring disdain on the people in China, America, Russia, Australasia, etc.
1. Re:From the USA, it's West. by DMiax · 2013-03-07 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm rejecting the notion that "western" can be used as a synonym of "democratic", "civilized" or just "not a police state" because those things have nothing to do with geographical or cultural proximity with the USA (or Europe).
2. Re:From the USA, it's West. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  So, really, you're promoting European Universality by claiming NZ is east, and thereby pouring disdain on the people in China, America, Russia, Australasia, etc.
  What an amazing line of thought... yes, let's call everyone Western world now! After all, I have nothing against China!
MPAA/RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 23:45 · Score: 0

drone strike in 3... 2... 1...
Mega and YouTube by mumblestheclown · 2013-03-06 23:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd like to say that unlike most of you (most of you who post, anyway), I am, in a broad brush "against" mega. The test of copyright infringement in all countries in not a simple yes/no, but rather depends on things like intent, amount of material involved, for profitness, etc. And, when put against such tests, it is clear that megaupload's entire business model was as a facilitator of copyright infringing materials. I don't think there's any legitimate claim for him to be a "common carrier" as an impartial ISP. I agree with the takedown of his site and the seizure of his ill-gotten gains.
HOWEVER
If you read the wiki page on mega, specifically the "basis of indictment" bullet points, what strikes me is this: the exact same list can easily be levied against youtube, which I content is also a business, like megaupload, fundamentally built upon copyright infringement. YouTube is slightly more clever in that they attract non-infringing users to better mask their infringing activities, but still fundamentally the vast bulk of youtube advertising dollars come from showing copyright infringing content. Like megaupload, it has as kiddy-pron filter that works and yet while the same filter could be trivially tweaked or built upon to block at least a good portion of blatantly infringing content, it is not. Furthermore, both youtube and mega technically claim to be DMCA-takedown compliant, but both make legitimate rightsholders go through the maximal numbers of hoops to submit claims AND have trivial mechanisms for replacement of taken-down content (in mega's case, the 'link' system, in youtube's case, users just create another logon and re-upload).
So, if there's one thing REALLY wrong with this case, it's not relatively small prosecutorial oversteps in going after mega. rather, it's the unequalness where mega was procecuted but youtube allows to steam on. do a youtube search for 'full movie' to see how bad it is. we all know that we can find more or less whatever we want on youtube, plus or minus a few recent items from popular/current shows where the rightsholders actively police youtube (like the latest family guy episodes).
in all cases, it is the creators of content, the very people that we should protect the most, that get screwed.
1. Re:Mega and YouTube by RaceProUK · 2013-03-07 00:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  it's the unequalness where mega was procecuted but youtube allows to steam on
  YouTube is owned by Google, and their pockets are deeper than the Mariana Trench. Dotcom's pockets are more like the Grand Canyon: big, but not that big.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
2. Re:Mega and YouTube by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  Except Youtube does have a automatic filter to takedown of copyright material. ./ loves to complain about home movies that have the music removed for this reason.
3. Re:Mega and YouTube by mumblestheclown · 2013-03-07 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Except their automatic filter is ridiculously bad for filtering out basically anything except for recent content by top label bands and recent TV shows, in both cases based on audio samples. You can watch pretty much every copyrighted documentary ever made, get tens of thousands of full length movies, and much more with trivial searches, most of which have been up for a long time and are never taken down. It is only the most obvious of obvious stuff that gets taken down, and even that gets back up in another form trivially fast The only things that really get taken down are the ones where rightsholders have been forced to pay people to sit there full time to write DMCA notices and/or the likely candidates who will sue them. So, youtube has a "don't sue us" filter, but that's about it.
4. Re:Mega and YouTube by laffer1 · 2013-03-07 01:39 · Score: 2
  
  Here's where your argument falls apart. By the logic you're using, if a company makes money on copyright infringement they should be stopped. What about all the PCs and Macs used to pirate movies, rip songs, etc? One can argue early versions of iTunes and Windows Media Player/encoder were used to pirate content. What about the MP3 codecs? How many people used them for legitimate purposes early on? P2P technology is another example. Blizzard distributes patches using P2P, but most of it's use is to pirate movies, music and software. Should all P2P software providers be shut down even though Blizzard and the Linux community have decided to use it for good?
  Technology is not bad in itself. Youtube is a platform for distributing content. Some users choose to use it for evil. Mega Upload was the same thing. It was a convenient service. What got him into trouble was how he was storing the content. By keeping one copy, it was easy to argue that when a request came in that he should remove all user's instances of the file. However, he wouldn't know if any of those users had a legitimate claim to have the file. From a technical perspective, it was just dedup at a simple level, but business people don't get that.
  Mega is a slimy guy, and he was at the line, but I don't think he crossed it with both feet.
  Copyright infringement comes down to one thing, as a society do we want free access to art or do we want to only allow the privileged who can afford it, to have access.
  
  --
  MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
5. Re:Mega and YouTube by mumblestheclown · 2013-03-07 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's NOT the logic i'm using. And, in fact, if you read the first paragraph of what I wrote, it's very very explicitly NOT the logic I am using.
  You are attempting to apply law like a computer program. And, sorry, but LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Your slippery slope analogy DOES NOT APPLY.
  In actual law and policy:
  - intent matters
  - quantity matters
  - judgment matters
  these things are the difference between intenetional murder and a regrettable accident.
  But thank you for an entirely predictable foil post for me to re-emphasize the key point.
  As far as this goes:
  >Copyright infringement comes down to one thing, as a society do we want free access to art or do we want to only allow the privileged who can afford it, to have >access.
  This is an utter and total oversimplification of a complex problem and you should be ashamed for having written this, though as you missed the key point of my first post, I am not so surprised.
6. Re:Mega and YouTube by poofmeisterp · 2013-03-07 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  You make a very good point.
  The unfortunate fact is that "the law" goes after those who aren't bringing in money to compensate for their breaking of law, like GoogleTube.
  Not to get off-topic, but what I fail to understand is how the "infringer" who downloads stuff to see/listen to/use/experiment with before purchasing it and recommending it to friends is any different. They are buying; you suing them and landing them in jail and/or removing all of the money from their dispensable cash flow is halting your profit.
  Just... thinking about this hurts. It's stupid.
7. Re:Mega and YouTube by drinkypoo · 2013-03-07 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  in all cases, it is the creators of content, the very people that we should protect the most, that get screwed.
  Well no. In all cases, it is The People, the people that we should protect equally, that get screwed. If you're the little guy, you can't afford to wage war over "intellectual property". These laws are there to benefit corporations.
  The first copyright law of which I'm aware stated "all books passing through this port must be submitted for copying", not "thou shalt not make copies". That kind of copyright was about increasing human knowledge. The kind we have now is about rent-seeking.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Mega and YouTube by squiggleslash · 2013-03-07 02:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  YouTube's also spent a lot of time making itself legal and started out with a legitimate premise (not a "We're legal nudge-nudge wink-wink" premise, but an entirely legitimate concept from the get-go - a place to share home movies. Things like the ten minute maximum length of each video, considerably shorter than 90% of TV shows and 100% of movies helped demonstrate that.)
  YouTube went to the content industry and worked with them on everything from implementing filters to block identifiable unauthorized content to providing them with royalties should they prefer that over DMCA takedowns.
  I just don't see any of that in the MU case. MU was no different from the other major "Upload up to a gigabyte and then distribute a link that anyone can use to access the same content" services. Even their DMCA compliance system was a joke, focussing on links to content (where an infinite number of links pointed to the same file) rather than on content.
  Was MU intended to be a facilitator of unauthorized material? I can't answer that, but I know YouTube never intended itself to be, didn't want to be, and took pro-active steps to deal with that situation. That's a major difference in and of itself.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
9. Re:Mega and YouTube by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up, Meg
10. Re:Mega and YouTube by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  By LAW there MUST be a trivial method of contesting and returning material taken down with an ILLEGITIMATE DMCA request.
  Fair Use exists. And the vast vast majority of so called "infringing" activity on youtube falls under fair use by the users.
11. Re:Mega and YouTube by steelfood · 2013-03-07 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget that governments, especially the U.S. government, are actively trying to bring down Google. They can't control Google, because Google doesn't really do too many things wrong, so they're trying to make the little infractions they occasionally do sound very, very bad.
  I don't like Google very much, but they are a wildcard in the entrenched interests' game of governance, and hence they are counted as a threat.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
12. Re:Mega and YouTube by mumblestheclown · 2013-03-07 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  bollocks. it is not fair use. it is some guy...
  a) posting an entire discovery channel documentary and then claiming that it is "fair use" because of fair use's education provision, though anybody with half a brain could see that such a claim does not stand up.
  b) posting a whole movie and then claiming "fair use" under god knows what theory.
  c) some guy claiming "fair use" because he used a commercial piece of music as the background for his something else.
  none of those have been interpreted as fair use. in fact, almost NOTHING on youtube that is claimed as "fair use" actually is.
  the idea that there is a real "illegitimate DMCA request" problem is fud. there is none. for every 1 actual illegitimate dmca request, i'm sure there are 10,000 infringing videos on youtube. your issue is FUD, FUD, FUD.
13. Re:Mega and YouTube by Shagg · 2013-03-07 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Even their DMCA compliance system was a joke, focussing on links to content (where an infinite number of links pointed to the same file) rather than on content.
  
  Focusing on the links is exactly how a DMCA compliance system is supposed to work.
  Imagine two people upload the same content. One for legitimate reasons and keeps their link private, the other for illegitimate reasons and makes their link public. A DMCA complaint is filed against the public link. Which do you do...
  1) Disable the public link.
  2) Remove the content from both the legitimate and illegitimate user.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
14. Re:Mega and YouTube by squiggleslash · 2013-03-07 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine instead that the same content can be reached by an infinite (or almost infinite) number of links, such that someone who uploads Die_Hard_7.mov can have it downloaded at:
  1. http://1.aharmatey.com/777/Die_Hard_7.mov
  2. http://bob.aharmatey.com/777/Die_Hard_7.mov
  3. http://www.aharmatey.com/777/Die_Hard_7.mov?src=100
  4. http://1.aharmatey.com/777/
  to name but four. Can you tell me how "focussing on links" is supposed to be "how a DMCA compliance system is supposed to work".
  You can't. Because it was never envisaged to work like that. If John uploaded Die_Hard_7.mov, then both for copyright and public sanitary reasons, the copyright holder was supposed to be able to file a take-down notice about the file John put up for download, and the website owner was supposed to take it down.
  That's what we're talking about here. As for your example? It's worth noting that nothing in copyright law says that you can upload a file whose copyright belongs to a third party to another third party's webserver, regardless of whether you intend to distribute it to millions of anonymous strangers, or keep it as a back-up. Now, you and I and possibly even the CEO of Sony (though not likely the latter) can make strong arguments about how backups are fair use and none of a copyright owner's business, but from a strictly legal point of view, from the point of view of the actual likely intent of those framing copyright laws, no, they're unlikely - in the extreme - to have thought "We need to focus on links, because otherwise someone who's also violating copyright law but not to the same extent might get caught in the cross fire."
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
15. Re:Mega and YouTube by Shagg · 2013-03-07 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine instead that the same content can be reached by an infinite (or almost infinite) number of links
  That number of them doesn't change anything.
  
  the copyright holder was supposed to be able to file a take-down notice about the file John put up for download
  The take-down notice is about the unauthorized distribution (aka the public links), not the file itself.
  
  can make strong arguments about how backups are fair use and none of a copyright owner's business
  Of course you can make strong arguments about it. Are you saying that a backup for your own personal use violates copyright? Even the RIAA doesn't dispute that anymore.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
16. Re:Mega and YouTube by Chris+Burke · 2013-03-07 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I can't answer that, but I know YouTube never intended itself to be, didn't want to be, and took pro-active steps to deal with that situation.
  Well, minus the one Youtube founder who was deliberately posting copyrighted material without permission to drive traffic early on.
  Though the others did take pro-active steps by making him stop so on the whole, your statement is true.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
17. Re:Mega and YouTube by drinkypoo · 2013-03-07 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  The take-down notice is about the unauthorized distribution (aka the public links), not the file itself.
  Links are not distribution any more than a street sign is.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re:Mega and YouTube by Solandri · 2013-03-07 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  what strikes me is this: the exact same list can easily be levied against youtube, which I content is also a business, like megaupload, fundamentally built upon copyright infringement. YouTube is slightly more clever in that they attract non-infringing users to better mask their infringing activities, but still fundamentally the vast bulk of youtube advertising dollars come from showing copyright infringing content.
  The vast majority of the "copyright infringing material" you see on YouTube is put there by the copyright holders themselves. Full National Geographic episodes? Uploaded by National Geographic. Various anime full episodes? FUNimation - the company who bought distribution rights from the anime creators. The excerpts from the Planet Earth series? Uploaded by the BBC. Mythbusters excerpts? Discovery Networks. PSY's Gangnam Style video? Uploaded by PSY himself. The #2 and #3 most viewed music videos? Uploaded by VEVO (joint venture between Sony, Universal, and EMI), the distributor for Justin Bieber and Jennifer Lopez.
  
  Yeah there are unauthorized excerpts and full movies, but the excerpts fall under fair use and the full movies usually have only a few hundred thousand views at most. Most infringing videos get pulled from YouTube before they hit 1 million views. So the vast bulk of YouTube advertising dollars come from showing authorized copyrighted content. It's why a lot of videos are 360p or 480p - the creators are using YouTube as advertising to encourage you to watch the show on TV or go out and buy the blu-ray after you've seen it.
  
  The key difference with Megaupload? Google shares advertising revenue with video uploaders.
19. Re:Mega and YouTube by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  the idea that there is a real "illegitimate DMCA request" problem is fud. there is none. for every 1 actual illegitimate dmca request, i'm sure there are 10,000 infringing videos on youtube. your issue is FUD, FUD, FUD.
  And how would you know that, shill? There's no oversight with DMCA requests whatsoever. No courts are involved; nothing. These things should not exist.
20. Re:Mega and YouTube by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-08 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  I think you don't really know how YouTube works. Content creators are allowed to monetize from their content. For independent musicians, the money that they get from that is usually more than what they would get from a label. Also, there's the option to block your content from being distributed and it happens automatically (with false positives that have been pointed out many times here, but still, most infringing content gets blocked).
  So no, youtube is not like mega. Youtube allows both Google and the content creators to earn money from ads. The viewer experience is much worse, because you have to endure ugly overlaying ads, whereas by illegal downloading you can watch without ads... By breaking the law, that is.
He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:42 · Score: 0

Let's remember who this guy is. The police and government actions may have been severly overboard but he is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. And he is certainly no Gandhi, Rosa Parks, or MLK Jr.
Someone posting below put it best:

I'd like to say that unlike most of you (most of you who post, anyway), I am, in a broad brush "against" mega. The test of copyright infringement in all countries in not a simple yes/no, but rather depends on things like intent, amount of material involved, for profitness, etc. And, when put against such tests, it is clear that megaupload's entire business model was as a facilitator of copyright infringing materials. I don't think there's any legitimate claim for him to be a "common carrier" as an impartial ISP. I agree with the takedown of his site and the seizure of his ill-gotten gains.
(Of course then he went on to rant and troll about Youtube, but this part of his quote is accurate).
We can be horrified by the government here, but I'd like to see some people put Kim DotDumbass in his place too.
1. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The government has basically ruined their ability and right to prosecute him by illegal and ridiculous behaviour. Is he a bad guy? probably. Does he deserve to have his basic freedoms respected? Ya, just like anyone else.
  Like other cases where a person's legal rights are infringed by investigators (and prosecutors), dotcom deserves to go free and the evidence used against him stricken. That's the only way to ensure that the same tactics won't be used again and again against people.
  Kim Dotcom is no hero, but the government is definitely the villain of the piece, and their actions have led to Kim Dotcom's credibility (ha!) in this case.
2. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by sFurbo · 2013-03-07 01:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I would prefer if illegal evidence garthering was punished like any other crime, but the evidence garthered could still used. Jail time would be a more powerful deterrent than havibg your evidence thrown out. However, I have no confidence that the guilty cops would receive justice, so perhaps your suggestion works better in practice.
3. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 02:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Like other cases where a person's legal rights are infringed by investigators (and prosecutors), dotcom deserves to go free and the evidence used against him stricken. That's the only way to ensure that the same tactics won't be used again and again against people.
  If the U.S. Constitution were still in effect, this egregious misconduct would get the perp freed at arraignment, if not cancelling the embarrassment of extradition. L'esprit deLoi of our Constitution is as guidelines for just and effective government, with primacy given toward protecting the citizen from the state.
4. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by MartinSchou · 2013-03-07 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is - who should be punished for gathering the illegally obtained evidence?
  The policemen who physically gathered the evidence?
  The lawyers who signed off on the gathering?
  The officers who signed off on the gathering?
  The politicians who pushed for a case to be made?
  All the policemen who were involved with the case?
  It's a tricky situation, because what is to prevent A from getting B to take the possible fall, by telling B to go pick that thing up?
  What I'd like to see is somewhat similar, but with clear lines of responsibility.
  The prosecutor in charge of the case is held in contempt of court for 10% of the maximum penalty possible for the crimes, but no less than 7 days (no pay etc), plus a fine equalling twice the salary that would have been earned in the time. Same for the lead officer/detective on the case.
  The prosecutor's boss (DA/AG etc) gets 5%, but no less than 7 days (no pay etc), similar fine. Same for the similar position in the police's ranks.
  Any public officials who have provably pushed for the case, gets 3%, but no less than 7 days (no pay etc), similar fine.
  Not sure what kind of punishment would be fitting for the policemen, CSI techs etc. who gathered the illegal evidence though. If they planted evidence or gathered it in knowingly illegal ways, they should obviously go to jail, but the problem comes when they gather evidence in good faith, that later turns out to be illegal. I don't want to punish them for simply doing their job in good faith.
5. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Like other cases where a person's legal rights are infringed by investigators (and prosecutors), dotcom deserves to go free and the evidence used against him stricken. That's the only way to ensure that the same tactics won't be used again and again against people.
  I argue that is not true. Although I believe in the need of due process, the procedure of striking poisoned evidence hasn't amounted to a deterrance of abuse by law enforcement. Something in the process must be revised, preferrably with the aim of building abuse deterrance.
  Something like, being it a crime. Evidence striken? No... evidence is evidence. Proof of fact is proof of fact. But the police men that acted illegally ought to go to jail just as well. Illegal is illegal.
6. Re: He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  When exactly was the US constitution "in effect" in New Zealand?
7. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Mashiki · 2013-03-07 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is - who should be punished for gathering the illegally obtained evidence?
  The policemen who physically gathered the evidence?
  The lawyers who signed off on the gathering?
  The officers who signed off on the gathering?
  The politicians who pushed for a case to be made?
  All the policemen who were involved with the case?
  Yes. That would be all of them, there are rules, regs, procedures, case law, constitution(in NZ's case), and so on that were all violated. It was such a massive breech of public trust that every person should be charged criminally.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
8. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by AK+Marc · 2013-03-07 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The government has gotten smart. In the 60s, they prosecuted Rosa Parks. She was an unassuming woman who was not sitting in the front of the bus, nor in the whites-only section. The civil rights activists picked their case carefully. She was not the first, but she was the last (not counting those which happened while the trial was going on). Why? Because the activists picked the test case. An unassuming woman sitting in the Blacks section in the back of the bus.
  
  The government hates losing. Why did it take so long for the US to leave Vietnam? Because no president wanted to be the first to lose a war for the US (I'm sure there was one in the 1800s we didn't win, but nobody remembers it). It took Nixon, getting ready to be impeached, to start the process, and Ford who would be more known for his pardon than anything else he'd do to get us out. So the US tests cases of civil rights against people like "Max Hardcore" now. Or Kim Dotcom. Find the questionable people of low charisma, and present them as criminals, try them later if convenient, but try them in the media first and make sure you won't lose, as the government did when the activists picked the test cases. We'd still have segregation if the courts only put dumb ghetto minorities in court. Give Rosa Parks a ticket for disorderly conduct and get a confession to that by means of a confession in exchange for a $2 fine and apology from the bus driver, and the whole thing would have disappeared without anyone knowing it happened. But no, we couldn't let any uppity black person win, and the activists descended as soon as they heard about it, and the government would not back down, even when they couldn't win.
  
  So they learned from Hitler and they are going after the trade unionists first (how's Fox News feel about unions?), and sexual perversion (see Max referenced above). We are following the Nazi playbook, even if we claim out ideology is different. Segregate and marginalize. Start with the least desirables (the sex offender's list is unconstitutional punishment, but it's ok because he was a scumbag and it was for the kids). Then move on in slow steps, making sure to never hit a group so large or liked that anyone will speak up for them.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
9. Re: He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Arclight17 · 2013-03-07 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that the US government is trying to get him extradited in order to put him on trial for crimes in the US. I believe that's the point of his statement.
  
  --
  All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction--Down.
10. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Kalriath · 2013-03-07 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  New Zealand does not have a constitution. The violation is of the Bill of Rights Act.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
11. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by stiggle · 2013-03-08 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think this speech sums it up nicely.
  Sir Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons" on the rule of law.
  No-one is above the law, and we should all abide by the law.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
12. Re:He is no hero, no Aaron Schwartz, no EFF. by Agripa · 2013-03-08 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Just imagine what they could do if they controlled the prosecution, defense, and judge of a trial.
  The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller
Reading comprehension: U FAIL. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 01:52 · Score: 0

"yes, let's call everyone Western world now!"
Yes, let's pretend that's what I said!
As a New Zealander.... by Mistakill · 2013-03-07 06:21 · Score: 1

Good... someone has to teach the Govt, and the NZ Police, and the GCSB that we have laws to be followed...

And the FBI as well
Another New Zealander responds by rolytnz · 2013-03-07 08:14 · Score: 1

I have been following this since it started with eyebrows rising at every new development. That KDC should be able to sue the government and the police is the right decision. However, the real bad guys here are the USA / FBI / MIAFIAA who bullied the NZ Government into acting in this unjust manner. The whole thing was a shake-down, plain and simple. Shame on the NZ government for allowing themselves to be bullied - all they can see is the Free-Trade-Agreement carrot being dangled, always out of reach... "You want a FTA? Then you must act on this terrorist who *allegedly* infringed on copyright". This started with the Three-Strikes file sharing law. Shame on you USA, you have manipulated/bribed another sovereign state into doing your dirty work and now they cop the consequences. Nothing new there I suppose. As much a "bit of a douche" KDC is - I admire him for giving everyone a shake-up, he is showing businesses that it's a brave new world of business models, not the 1950's heyday of *AA.
New Zealand New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 11:17 · Score: 0

This still doesn't make up for the Hobit!