Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom Regrets Not Taking Copyright Law and MPAA "More Seriously"

concertina226 writes Kim Dotcom has spoken out about his long battle over copyright with the U.S. government and his regrets about the events that have led to his arrest ahead of his bail breach hearing on Thursday that could see him return to jail in New Zealand. "Would I have done things differently? Of course. My biggest regret is I didn't take the threat of the copyright law and the MPAA seriously enough," Dotcom said via live video link from his mansion in Auckland, New Zealand at the Unbound Digital conference in London on Tuesday. ... "We never for a minute thought that anyone would bring any criminal actions against us. We had in-house legal counsel, we had three outside firms working for us who reviewed our sites, and not once had any of them mentioned any form of legal risk, so I wish I had known that there was a risk."

151 comments

  1. frist by Holi · · Score: 2

    > We had in-house legal counsel, we had three outside firms working for us who reviewed our sites, and not once had any of them mentioned any form of legal risk, > so I wish I had known that there was a risk.

    Maybe you should have hired LAW firms....

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice "frist" (sic). Law firsts are pretty useless at counseling you when the "laws" are being made up on the spot like in his case.

    2. Re:frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lesson learned. Don't mess with MPAA and copyright. Do regular terrorism because after a while the public will forget. Big Media never forgets.

    3. Re:frist by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well that would have been a waste of money against virtually unlimited government spending. Maybe, just maybe, he should have hired lobbyists and made the required political campaign pay-offs, in conjunction with deposits in certain tax haven bank accounts. Then Joe Bidden could not have so readily corruptly abused the US Department of Justice and the US State Department and the New Zealand government, at the bidding of his Hollywood campaign contributors, luxury holiday providers and party invite providers, where the guests receive gifts rather than providing them, well, at least at the party, the are expected to provide many government funded gifts post party or holiday. The whole Mega Upload case was blatant government corruption and abuse of the legal process.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:frist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said legal risk, not extralegal extranational military raids on his home with helicopters.

      Lawyers would have still been in the dark, other than at this point mostly being aware that the first rule of dealing with government is that government breaks its own rules.

      Amusing captcha: derriere

  2. Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel .. by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    .. but we know the goddam risks.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. Kimmie vs MPAA by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Whoever loses
    We win

    Never before I caught myself rooting for the MPAA. If only just a tiny little bit.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Kimmie vs MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I disagree. I'd say the MPAA is many times worse than Kim. At least he's not shoving through draconian copyright law after draconian copyright law, something that affects many, many more people and violates everyone's rights.

      The government failed to follow proper legal procedures a number of times in this case, and for that they deserve to fail. If they're allowed to get away with it, we all lose.

    2. Re:Kimmie vs MPAA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You might want to check out Kimmie's past. Most likely he didn't cause so much grief as the MPAA but he sure did ruin a life or two in his path.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Kimmie vs MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I just said that the MPAA is many times worse, not that Kim is a good guy; I certainly don't think he is. But I think it's more important for the government to follow proper procedure than it is for them to be able to nab this guy.

  4. Wrong risk ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "We never for a minute thought that anyone would bring any criminal actions against us. We had in-house legal counsel, we had three outside firms working for us who reviewed our sites, and not once had any of them mentioned any form of legal risk, so I wish I had known that there was a risk."

    What he was doing may or may not have been legal.

    What he didn't evaluate was the risk that the MPAA et al had bought off/co-opted the US government, who decided they were going to go into the business of strong-arming people when they don't have an applicable law.

    You can't plan for stuff like that.

    From the sounds of it, no NZ law was broken, he's yet to be charged with anything for which there's an actual law in the US, and the US government is seizing his assets before they're proven he's done anything wrong.

    You can't fight a nation state acting on behalf of a cartel of corporations.

    Because it doesn't matter what the law says at that point.

    As I understand it, he never actually committed copyright infringement. So he's being charged with some made up offense which isn't a law anywhere.

    At that point, it's just a show trial.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wrong risk ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      What he didn't evaluate was the risk that the MPAA et al had bought off/co-opted the US government, who decided they were going to go into the business of strong-arming people when they don't have an applicable law.

      You can't plan for stuff like that.

      What? Yes, you absolutely can. Yes, it was absolutely predictable. Yes. YES! Look, yes. The answer to all your objecting questions is yes. Yes, he could and should have predicted that the USA would do its best to sow his ground with salt. Just fucking look at us. LOOK AT US. Of course we would do that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Wrong risk ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is actually probable that New Zealand law was broken, when their intelligence services were spying on him and possibly when they allowed the FBI to move a considerable volume of evidence back to the US without any legal process. As for New Zealand law being broken by the defendant, that hasn't been as well established.

    3. Re:Wrong risk ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We never for a minute thought that anyone would bring any criminal actions against us. We had in-house legal counsel, we had three outside firms working for us who reviewed our sites, and not once had any of them mentioned any form of legal risk, so I wish I had known that there was a risk."

      What he was doing may or may not have been legal.

      What he didn't evaluate was the risk that the MPAA et al had bought off/co-opted the US government, who decided they were going to go into the business of strong-arming people when they don't have an applicable law.

      You can't plan for stuff like that.

      From the sounds of it, no NZ law was broken, he's yet to be charged with anything for which there's an actual law in the US, and the US government is seizing his assets before they're proven he's done anything wrong.

      You can't fight a nation state acting on behalf of a cartel of corporations.

      Because it doesn't matter what the law says at that point.

      As I understand it, he never actually committed copyright infringement. So he's being charged with some made up offense which isn't a law anywhere.

      At that point, it's just a show trial.

      So, in a nutshell, Dotcom is a victim of government corruption.

    4. Re:Wrong risk ... by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What he didn't evaluate was the risk that the MPAA et al had bought off/co-opted the US government, who decided they were going to go into the business of strong-arming people when they don't have an applicable law.

      You can't plan for stuff like that.

      Bullshit.

      After the Pirate Bay was seized the 1st time, everyone in a similar business should've expected it, especially when he's a career criminal with several previous convictions, including for copyright violations, like Kimble is.

      At that point, it's just a show trial.

      And he's playing his role perfectly. What, you think he's the victim here? Please, get a grip. Actual victims of the government don't phone in their press conference from their mansion. They sit in Gitmo or some overcrowded federal prison with their assets seized through forfeiture laws. Yes, I know he's in NZ and those laws don't apply, I don't mean it literally. Everyone with three working brain cells will realized that if they wanted to, they could make his life less comfortable.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:Wrong risk ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Everyone with three working brain cells will realized that if they wanted to, they could make his life less comfortable.

      If he weren't rich, they would have done it already. But if they nail him without truly solid pretext then other rich people (who are in a position to actually enact social change) will be leery of their pogrom. I mean, program. Wait...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Wrong risk ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And he's playing his role perfectly. What, you think he's the victim here?

      No, as a matter of fact I think the man is an arrogant weasel and a parasite.

      My problem is I have yet to see anything which indicates that NZ law was adhered to, that the US didn't take massive short cuts and just bluster their way through this, and that what he's accused of is actually a law on the books which is applicable where they claim it was broken.

      I do not claim to understand all of the legalities. Not by a long shot. But, from what I've been able to see, neither the US nor NZ police bothered with them either.

      So, as soon as you start to realize they skirted around the laws for something expedient, the amount of distrust around all of the rest of it goes up quite a bit.

      If we don't have proper due process for scoundrels and assholes, what's to stop giving up on the pretense entirely?

      I think the way this was handled by the FBI and the NZ police is so sketchy as to invalidate any of the claims about what he did, and who had jurisdiction to do anything about it.

      And I also think that if he didn't have the resources to fight this, he'd have been carted off and subjected to a legal system which wasn't playing fairly.

      So, in that regards, if he's fighting police agencies who feel they don't need to adhere to the niceties of the law ... well, then I think he should continue sticking it to them.

      I'm far more concerned about the abuse of process and the law.

      Because increasingly a lot of law enforcement has decided that the ends justify the means, and the law is just too damned inconvenient to follow.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Wrong risk ... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1, Informative

      What about when Kim Dotcom lied on his residency application by failing to declare a driving conviction?

      I hope he gets deported back to Germany.

    8. Re:Wrong risk ... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      You can't plan for stuff like that.

      What? Yes, you absolutely can. Yes, it was absolutely predictable. Yes. YES! Look, yes. The answer to all your objecting questions is yes. Yes, he could and should have predicted that the USA would do its best to sow his ground with salt. Just fucking look at us. LOOK AT US. Of course we would do that.

      Even if you can predict that no rules/laws will apply, how can you reasonably plan for that contingency? What would those plans look like? Should KDC have given up business and become a survivalist?

      My wholehearted prediction would have been that KDC was on the entitled side of the justice gap and as long as he had good lawyers and followed their advice then he would have nothing to worry about. The Pirate Bay getting repeatedly stomped on was not a surprise but the attack on KDC was a huge shock to me. I still find it amazing.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    9. Re:Wrong risk ... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      You state something false - you certainly can recognize when you are going up against big money and thumbing your nose against it. You can certainly plan, if not for the specific tactic they will take, for the general fact that you are endangering their bottom line and that affects many people's pocketbooks and they aren't going to take that assault on their livelihood (even an unrealized one or one which simply has great potential) lying down.

      Saying you can't plan for this is saying that you can't recognize the power of massive corporations to change laws, use extra legal means or harrassment, and to lobby or that you can't recognize that nation states are driven by their wealthy and their corporations in the modern world and law bends to accommodate wealth (because it is the tool of the wealthy in some large measure as we need a savant class to interact with it).

      Facts obvious at the outset:
      MP3.com / MegaUpload / others all threaten big media bottom lines
      Big media has a lot of money and has a track record of ruthlessness and a willingness to be bloody-minded
      The US and other western countries are to some degree politically influenced by corporations (the US most of all I suspect)
      The US will exert its reach beyond its borders in various ways and allies will often comply to stay in their good books
      The world is increasingly global and being outside the nation of an empire whose monied corporations you are threatening is no defense
      Any and all tactics are on the line when large amounts of money are involved

      We can all reasonably forsee these things gong forward and could even 25 years ago. So there's no way except willful self-delusion that Kim couldn't have seen this coming. To assume a constancy of law, an inability of the major players to exert influence to change law, an inability of a major empire to reach beyond its borders, and to presume his small budget could match their large budget in terms of power and capability ..... these are all willful acts of self-delusion. Ego plays a big role here. The urge to thumb ones nose at a bully is great for most of us.... the odds of our nose getting realigned while doing so are pretty high too.

      This is the problem with the world today: Institutions (Corporations/Nation-States) now have a life well beyond that of their employees or their economic or geographic sector because of the money involved in them. The larger they are, the more pronounced this is. Individuals and smaller groups of individuals can never match this.

      This is why the current surveillance state trends, government non-transparency, militarization of police, and government-for-corporate-interests (or government-for-rich-people as a more classic description) are so troubling. Individuals and smaller entities can't muster the power to oppose this and these trends are enshrining tools and laws that make it hard to ever build towards opposing these institutions and power centers.

      In the long run, a nation strongly sunk under this sort of influence and control by an elite and with all sorts of ways of stopping the masses from developing more moderate countermeasures and opposition can only end one way: Anarchy and complete tear down and rebuilding. Revolution. Social unrest on a nationwide scale. Extensive bloodletting. Likely even if you can manage the revolution, the rebuilding may fail and you end up in a failed state scenario.

      I hate to say it, but in the next couple of hundred years, I expect to see either the veneer of freedom and democracy finally disavowed in Western nations or else massive social upheaval and these states being reduced to the dustbin of history (maybe with nothing but chaos and misery replacing them like Africa often sees).

      We don't care enough and aren't strong enough to put up the hard fight now. The fortification of power is ever increasing. In the long run, that just increases the butcher's bill.

      Yes, I'm feeling pretty grim about the possibilities and probabilities. I have read a lot of histories and most empires don't go gracefully into the good night.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    10. Re:Wrong risk ... by Tom · · Score: 1

      So, as soon as you start to realize they skirted around the laws for something expedient, the amount of distrust around all of the rest of it goes up quite a bit.

      Yeah, you'd almost think it was intentionally blundered so it would make for a great show while at the end none of the actors are harmed too much.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:Wrong risk ... by Tom · · Score: 1

      I've yet to see any other rich people show an interest in Kimbles fate. They're not stupid, and if they care at all they've had someone check this guy and tell them he's just a slimeball whose time is up. In fact, he should've been caught years ago, he avoided prison time more than once by changing country.

      That's not how rich people work. They don't have to flee their countries, it would be too uncomfortable.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Wrong risk ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Even if you can predict that no rules/laws will apply, how can you reasonably plan for that contingency? What would those plans look like? Should KDC have given up business and become a survivalist?

      Except that in this case the law was very plain and it was obvious that it was being violated. I may not like the DMCA, but it doesn't take a legal brainiac to know that refusing to comply with take-down requests (what Kim's was doing with his links vs files argument) will lead to greater legal retaliation.

    13. Re:Wrong risk ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Oh, almost forgot: and if you say that the DMCA is a US law and doesn't affect people in other countries... well, you'd be absolutely right that the DMCA itself is only a US law. However, it is requirement, an implementation of WIPO treaties which all mentioned companies have agreed to.

    14. Re:Wrong risk ... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      Except that in this case the law was very plain and it was obvious that it was being violated. I may not like the DMCA, but it doesn't take a legal brainiac to know that refusing to comply with take-down requests (what Kim's was doing with his links vs files argument) will lead to greater legal retaliation.

      What are you talking about? KDC followed the advice of his lawyers and complied with DMCA takedown notices. He was set up in a nasty sting operation where the FBI asked him to not take down a particular file (or files) in order to aid them in an investigation. He cooperated with the FBI and this is what they busted him for.

      For example, the Wikipedia gives Dotcom's perspective:

      In regard to Megaupload, Dotcom believes the company had actively tried to prevent copyright infringement -- its terms of service forced users to agree they would not post copyrighted material to the website. Companies or individuals with concerns that their copyright material was being posted on Megaupload were given direct access to the website to delete infringing links. Megaupload also employed 20 staff dedicated to taking down material which might infringe copyright.

      KDC was hosting files so it would be silly for him to use a "links vs files" argument as you suggest. It would have also been extremely stupid for him to ignore DMCA takedown notices because obeying those notices is what gave him "safe harbor" protection. You may be a legal brainiac but what you are suggesting makes no sense and has nothing to do with reality.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    15. Re:Wrong risk ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When the US sent CIA thugs to threaten the sovereignty of Russia if they didn't shut down AllOfMP3, despite AOMP3 never having broken any law in the US or Russia, everyone should have expected it.

      AOMP3 was shut down by the Russian mob, not the government. It just happens that the mob was working for the government. That was used because the cartels that run the US wanted it shut down, and the law allowed it, so literally an invasion of Russia was threatened unless AllOfMP3 met with an untimely accident.

    16. Re: Wrong risk ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. An invasion of Russia? Seriously? Do you realize how silly you sound?

    17. Re: Wrong risk ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes. But it was true. American agents were on the ground in Russia when it was shut down, and Russia was offered the choice of shutting it down, or the US would violate its sovereignty to shut it down. That violation of sovereignty is an invasion. Foreign troops enforcing foreign laws against the wishes of the locals is an invasion. And it was planned and in motion before Russia caved and shut it down themselves, paying the mob to do it to keep the government's hands clean.

      That you think reality silly doesn't make it any less true.

    18. Re:Wrong risk ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's not how rich people work. They don't have to flee their countries, it would be too uncomfortable.

      I fail to see the discomfort in parking the yacht in a different harbor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re: Wrong risk ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course, they would put boots on the ground for a website but not for Ukraine. ;)

    20. Re: Wrong risk ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They did. The Ukraine isn't wanted by the RIAA or oil barons. The US government exists solely to serve the interests of billionaires. If you can't name a billionaire who wants us to be in the Ukraine, then we aren't.

  5. Take the legal cousel to task by jraff2 · · Score: 1

    Due dilligence or what ever New Zeland calls it. Your legal counsel, both in house and outside firms did not due there due dilligence! Sue them for the whole amount plus pain, suffering, incarceration, etc.

    1. Re:Take the legal cousel to task by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      our legal counsel, both in house and outside firms did not due there due dilligence! Sue them for the whole amount plus pain, suffering, incarceration, etc.

      There's nothing good at the bottom of that hole, unless you've got a smoking gun that proves not incompetence, but deliberate negligence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Take the legal cousel to task by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be daft. It's the usual "I didn't know I was doing wrong" spiel that allows everybody to save face in an upcoming deal. Do you really think that someone who has been skirting copyright and other laws since the 1980s and been in trouble for it several times doesn't know what he's doing? Kim Schmitz has weaseled out of it before and will do it again. Anyone who associated with him has learned or will learn through experience that his loyalty is only to himself.

  6. Lies. 100% Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He knew full well that there was risk. He just didn't give a shit. The guy is a moron.

  7. Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by tomhath · · Score: 1

    He seems to think the laws didn't apply to him.

    1. Re:Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Funny

      He seems to think the laws didn't apply to him.

      So his next career will be on Wall Street?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US laws don't apply to him, that's the thing. It's the US that's trying it's hardest at putting a guy, who never stepped foot in their country, in jail.
      All because the big copyrights holder paid big money to a couple puppets.

    3. Re:Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by T-Bone_142 · · Score: 1

      No he thought that the US would follow the legal process they agreed to when negotiating an extradition treaty with New Zealand. What he didnt see coming was getting raided with what was basically a small army (with air support) and then having his money sized and not returned for following the process as set forth in the US/NZ extradition treaty.

      --
      "In Soviet America, Passport Stamps You!"
    4. Re:Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps practicing law?
      Maybe run for office? He certainly seems just as qualified as the current round of knuckleheads.

    5. Re:Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which laws? Please quote the criminal law he's broken in either country which makes him a possible target for extradition.

    7. Re: Kim Dotcom Regrets getting caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's broken the most fundamental law: might makes right.

  8. You can't escape the long reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of the mouse!

  9. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    They thought they'd face civil suits.

    What they got blindsided by was criminal charges, where they'd be sent to jail.

  10. He definitely did know and understand the risk. by HnT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kim Schmitz started out in the BBS days and did exactly the same thing back then: providing storage for people to upload and swap "warez" on his BBS site. Google "Beverly Hills BBS" and "House of Coolness BBS". He was reading and archiving everyone's messages and when the police in Germany cracked down on him he turned on his former colleagues and friends and gave everyone up to get a better deal for himself. He was also convicted of calling card and computer fraud, a few years later he was getting rich on an insider deal scam with letsbuyit.com for which he was also convicted.
    However you might feel about hollywood abusing international leverage to break into his home, make no mistake: Kim thrives in the grey area and on illegal activities and he has several criminal convictions to prove that fact. He has repeatedly managed to at least temporarily flee jurisdiction by moving country. If there is one person who definitely understands all ins and outs of copyright then it is him, at the very least out of experience and from having been caught red handed more than once.

    This is nothing but yet another one of his charades and PR stunts. He is not fighting for you or your right to keep a "backup copy". Trying to get everyone on the net riled up is just yet another PR stunt. Kim always has been and always will be caring for only one person: himself. And he will not hesitate to lie and step on former friends and partners alike. Never just trusting anything he says should be the default.

    --
    "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is nothing but yet another one of his charades and PR stunts. He is not fighting for you or your right to keep a "backup copy".

      I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free. We The People enable, protect, and to a large part even pay for the production of mass media content due to Hollywood's and Big Music's creative accounting practices which show them losing money or breaking even on clearly profitable media. And the same goes for the telecommunications infrastructure: We The People largely paid for that, not just by paying for services but actually through government grants and the like, and it's used against us to milk us of every possible cent while providing the lowest possible standard of service. The fact that we still pay more to send calls across town than to send them across the country is just ridiculous and it's based on legislation bought by the telecoms industry.

      Kim always has been and always will be caring for only one person: himself. And he will not hesitate to lie and step on former friends and partners alike. Never just trusting anything he says should be the default.

      I feel about Kim the way I feel about a big rock rolling down a hill. It's going to make a path I can follow, but I don't want to hang out with it... or in its way

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free. We The People enable, protect, and to a large part even pay for the production of mass media content due to Hollywood's and Big Music's creative accounting practices which show them losing money or breaking even on clearly profitable media. And the same goes for the telecommunications infrastructure: We The People largely paid for that, not just by paying for services but actually through government grants and the like, and it's used against us to milk us of every possible cent while providing the lowest possible standard of service. The fact that we still pay more to send calls across town than to send them across the country is just ridiculous and it's based on legislation bought by the telecoms industry.

      Bullcrap. No one believes in "information should be free" because otherwise they're all hypocrites.

      I mean, if information should be free, then where's his banking information? Passwords, transits, account numbers, etc? That's information, it should be free. Likewise identity card information, photos, alarm codes and key details to his mansion.

      Now, it's true the content industries of the US have screwed people many times over, but let's not confuse "I want my content for free" with "information should be free". Or even "Copyright should be eliminated" (which a lot of people aren't for, either).

      I'm sure even open-source advocates don't even want that - because free information means that their precious copyleft is invalid as well. I mean, if Linux is supposed to be free, then I should be free to do anything I want with it, without restrictions.

      And yes without copyright, the GPL is useless (the GPL is a true license in that if you don't agree, you get basic legal rights granted by legislation. If you do agree, though, you get additional rights, unlike most licenses which seek to reduce your legal rights).

    3. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, the short answer is that in the long run I would prefer a society not based on artificial scarcity, so that people aren't so worried about getting a piece of what I've got.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If he is telling the truth, he sought legal advice, and all of this lawyers told him he was "legal". I've also personally had lawyers lie to me about what was legal.

      Yes, he operated the grey area - most companies do. All professional shady companies use lawyers to stay "legal".

      Companies who evade taxes using loopholes are just as grey as this.

    5. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fat slob wants information to be free as long as he gets paid for it

    6. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in short, yet another Steve Jobs? Yea, we can almost all agree that Kim Dotcom is an asshole, willing to abuse you for his own ends. But then we don't arrest people for being assholes. And there's plenty of examples of being who made it big who wholly admit to committing some sort of crime (Bill Gates lying to get computer time access to work on commercial software) yet we don't see them being prosecuted.

      My take on this? More than likely Megaupload was approached by the US government for a shakedown* and instead of complying with a relatively low fine, he went with the "technically legal" approach and is now facing the wrath of the US government such that others learn the same lesson. Look no further than every other file sharing site that went down without this witch hunt and for every current file sharing site that's still up.

      * The current approach to "regulation" in the Federal Government seems to be to find a company that is literally or spiritually violating the law and to extract money from them, not for the money but to be able to claim some sort of accomplishment by the DA at the DOJ. This involves a company being approached, negotiating a value, and paying a settlement without admitting any wrong doing or virtually never getting any jail time. I think that's what happened to Schwartz as well, except that he felt it had to be "never getting any jail time" and as others noted the jail time could potentially hurt his career. In any case, DK could have easily played the shakedown game if he were less of an arrogant asshole.

    7. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Tom · · Score: 2

      I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free.

      In a dialog with two extreme positions, invariable both sides are full of shit.

      You need to define "information" better. I'd not like all information about my private life be free. Nor am I interested in yours. And some information can cost lives, not because of evil government spies, but because not everyone in the world is well-meaning.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but yet another one of his charades and PR stunts. He is not fighting for you or your right to keep a "backup copy".

      I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free. We The People enable, protect, and to a large part even pay for the production of mass media content due to Hollywood's and Big Music's creative accounting practices which show them losing money or breaking even on clearly profitable media. And the same goes for the telecommunications infrastructure: We The People largely paid for that, not just by paying for services but actually through government grants and the like, and it's used against us to milk us of every possible cent while providing the lowest possible standard of service. The fact that we still pay more to send calls across town than to send them across the country is just ridiculous and it's based on legislation bought by the telecoms industry.

      So what do you suggest as an alternative?

      How, as a society, do we fund the creation of big budget movies that a lot of people really enjoy?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by c · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is nothing but yet another one of his charades and PR stunts. He is not fighting for you or your right to keep a "backup copy". Trying to get everyone on the net riled up is just yet another PR stunt. Kim always has been and always will be caring for only one person: himself. And he will not hesitate to lie and step on former friends and partners alike. Never just trusting anything he says should be the default.

      ... and yet, somehow, he still comes across as less sleazy than the people going after him.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    10. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      theatre ticket sales, cam rips suck!

    11. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      extremely expensive popcorn and drinks

    12. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that we rely on the actual free market rather than on government-enforced monopolies that infringe upon free speech and real private property rights. It's up to individuals trying to sell something to succeed, and no one else. If they can't figure out how to make money on their product, that is simply too bad.

    13. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that we rely on the actual free market rather than on government-enforced monopolies that infringe upon free speech and real private property rights. It's up to individuals trying to sell something to succeed, and no one else. If they can't figure out how to make money on their product, that is simply too bad.

      So your solution is DRM.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    14. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      My actual solution is to let people come up with their own solutions. But yes, I'm sure many would choose to try DRM... and many would fail, since DRM is rarely effective in any sense.

    15. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      My actual solution is to let people come up with their own solutions. But yes, I'm sure many would choose to try DRM... and many would fail, since DRM is rarely effective in any sense.

      DRM is fairly effective, the problem is it's a massive PITA for legitimate users and prevents a lot of legitimate uses. The fact it's a PITA combined with the fact that the warez sites tend to get shut down (and people understand they're illegal) means that people are more willing to pay for official content.

      But if you remove copyright entirely then not only are the warez sites legal, but so are companies who make a business off of ripping off creators. And even for the ones who still pay creators the prices will be pushed down by the need to compete with the companies who don't pay creators.

      There's still money coming in, but without the law declaring the warez sites illegitimate (even if it isn't enforced) it's only going to be a fraction of what's coming in now. I just don't think you can wave your hands and assume they'll adapt without a massive drop in the number of working artists.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      DRM is fairly effective, the problem is it's a massive PITA for legitimate users and prevents a lot of legitimate uses.

      Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.

      We've never had a society like ours that did not have copyright, so we don't actually know what it would look like. You can only make baseless guesses based on how our current society operates, not a society where people are used to the idea of there being no copyright and therefore have figured out how to adapt. I don't claim to know what it would be like, either.

      And freedom (freedom of speech, real private property rights) is more important to me than the sort of 'safety' you speak of, anyway.

    17. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Well, the short answer is that in the long run I would prefer a society not based on artificial scarcity,

      of something that has artificial value. None of the pirated video or audio has any real intrinsic value, it is only valued for its transient entertainment value. It's the "new hobbit movie" or "hot band's latest track". It's the final episode of a series that didn't enrich society in the long run anyway. It's the latest Henry Potter or vampire/zombie/apocalypse book. People who think they are owed a copy of such works and will take them for free if the copyright owner doesn't see fit to sell it to them, well. The work cost money to produce, it costs the user nothing if they never get to view or hear it.

      Do all of those deserve copyright protection? Of course, simply because you don't want government determining what is "valuable" enough to merit protection and what isn't.

      so that people aren't so worried about getting a piece of what I've got.

      If you don't want people to worry about getting "a piece of what you've got", you are free to give it all away for free. (Use of the word "free" in both major senses, intentional.) Of course you aren't free to demand that others give away what they've got for free. If you've accepted a license that says you won't give away what they've given you from their stash of "got", then you aren't free to give that away for free, either.

    18. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How, as a society, do we fund the creation of big budget movies that a lot of people really enjoy?

      Crowdsourcing, I suppose. You pay for the movie ahead of time, and based on your investment you get to see the film, download it, get a DVD or a Blu-Ray or an M4V, get to be an extra in a crowd scene or whatever they're offering. There's no reason that major studios can't use this model. And then there's merchandising, official conventions, and lots of other opportunities for profit. I don't really think that there will be any problem getting enough people to fund some of these big-budget stinkers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      DRM is fairly effective, the problem is it's a massive PITA for legitimate users and prevents a lot of legitimate uses.

      Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.

      Exactly, DRM is fairly effective :P

      We've never had a society like ours that did not have copyright, so we don't actually know what it would look like. You can only make baseless guesses based on how our current society operates, not a society where people are used to the idea of there being no copyright and therefore have figured out how to adapt. I don't claim to know what it would be like, either.

      Not exactly but copyright hasn't always existed and in some places like China it's generally ignored.

      And freedom (freedom of speech, real private property rights) is more important to me than the sort of 'safety' you speak of, anyway.

      I don't think freedom of speech is really inhibited by copyright. I also wasn't aware that I spoke about 'safety' at all.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    20. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      How, as a society, do we fund the creation of big budget movies that a lot of people really enjoy?

      Crowdsourcing, I suppose. You pay for the movie ahead of time, and based on your investment you get to see the film, download it, get a DVD or a Blu-Ray or an M4V, get to be an extra in a crowd scene or whatever they're offering. There's no reason that major studios can't use this model. And then there's merchandising, official conventions, and lots of other opportunities for profit. I don't really think that there will be any problem getting enough people to fund some of these big-budget stinkers.

      Then go for it and show that it's a viable model.

      The best way to get rid of copyright is to make it unncessary. A major Creative Commons movie would go a very long way to doing that.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    21. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Then go for it and show that it's a viable model.

      I don't know if it is, yet, because of the successes of the copyright cartel.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      Exactly, DRM is fairly effective :P

      Then DRM might be viable for now. Even the so-called "tech-savvy" generation mostly can do little else other than access Facebook accounts and use software that they took a class on (most likely a Microsoft Essentials-type class).

      Not exactly but copyright hasn't always existed and in some places like China it's generally ignored.

      No, it hasn't, but such societies are/were far different from ours in a number of other significant ways that you can't really say one way or another. We don't even know how much the lack of (or the ignoring of) copyright impacts/impacted them. It would be difficult to study this scientifically, as these things usually are.

      I don't think freedom of speech is really inhibited by copyright.

      Then what is it when websites are taken down for copyright infringement, or when people are punished for using their own equipment to send data around? Copyright enforcement definitely requires infringing upon people's speech and private property rights.

      I also wasn't aware that I spoke about 'safety' at all.

      Safety from lack of innovation.

    23. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Then what is it when websites are taken down for copyright infringement, or when people are punished for using their own equipment to send data around?

      Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to reproduce the speech of others when those others do not wish you to do so. It means the freedom for YOU to speak YOUR WORDS, not using a copy of a movie produced through a great deal of hard work and much money by someone else.

    24. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Then go for it and show that it's a viable model.

      I don't know if it is, yet, because of the successes of the copyright cartel.

      Cop out. Nothing in the "copyright cartel" (whatever that is supposed to be) stops you from producing a big-budget motion picture under CC licensing, nor does it stop anyone else. You'll claim that it is a viable model, but when challenged to use it you'll admit that you don't know that it is because nobody else has done it yet. The fact nobody else has done it yet is your excuse it cannot be done.

      What does stop people from doing this is the knowledge the people who actually have the money to do such a thing have: that they'd be spending a lot of money and never get it back. They couldn't charge for a DVD of the movie because lots of someone's who didn't have a huge up-front cost of producing the movie could undercut their pricing. Any "merchandising" opportunities would be filled by a similar large number of companies where the costs of developing the characters and advertising the initial concepts didn't need to be recouped from the chachkis. Some people would go to see the movie in theaters, but many more would simply wait for it to appear for free on TV, just like what happens today.

      No, it isn't a viable model. THAT'S why nobody has done it yet. Not because of some mythical "copyright cartel" that prevents someone from doing it.

    25. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to reproduce the speech of others when those others do not wish you to do so.

      Freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate without being harassed by government thugs. Whether they're your own words or data is irrelevant. How much effort the original writer put into it is irrelevant, but at least you said "copy." I think it's rather absurd to say that your freedom of speech should be restricted merely because other people don't want you to quote them or transfer data they assembled. Humans make copies of things all the time; it's in their nature. This distinction doesn't even make sense.

    26. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate without being harassed by government thugs.

      Just because you cannot distribute other people works without their permission doesn't mean you are not free to "communicate", you just have to communicate your own speech.

      Whether they're your own words or data is irrelevant.

      If is isn't your speech, then why do you think you should have a right to repeat it when the person who did say it says you can't? It is quite relevant if the words are your own or not.

      I think it's rather absurd to say that your freedom of speech should be restricted merely because other people don't want you to quote them or transfer data they assembled.

      What you think is absurd isn't relevant. The concept of "freedom of speech" is what we're talking about here. If the words belong to someone else, they aren't yours to exercise "freedom of speech" over, they're someone else's. If it isn't your "person, papers, or property", then you can't claim your fourth amendment rights are being violated when the cops confiscate your neighbor's car. You can jump up and down and yell about hey they violated HIS fourth amendment rights, but they didn't violate yours.

      Humans make copies of things all the time; it's in their nature.

      What a remarkable red herring. Making copies of things has nothing to do with "freedom of speech", especially when it isn't your own speech you are copying, and when the issue isn't copying but distributing.

    27. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes without copyright, the GPL is useless (the GPL is a true license in that if you don't agree, you get basic legal rights granted by legislation. If you do agree, though, you get additional rights, unlike most licenses which seek to reduce your legal rights).

      Without copyright, the GPL would be unnecessary. It's a brilliant legal hack: without copyright, people are free to share. With copyright, people are free to (nay, must) share GPL-licensed software.

      Copyright apologists never seem to get that the GPL, while technically reliant on copyright, is using copyright to hoist the imaginary property industry with its own petard.

    28. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      If is isn't your speech, then why do you think you should have a right to repeat it when the person who did say it says you can't? It is quite relevant if the words are your own or not.

      Because it's still just communicating ideas. Whether or not you came up with them is completely irrelevant. That's the real red herring here.

      If the words belong to someone else

      Yeah, no. I reject this idea in its entirety, hence why I reject copyright.

      If it isn't your "person, papers, or property", then you can't claim your fourth amendment rights are being violated when the cops confiscate your neighbor's car.

      Speech isn't physical property. Completely different concept. Data can be copied easily, and if the government stops *you* from communicating those copied ideas, then yes, that *is* affecting you; they're harassing you, after all.

      You're just saying, "Someone else said it first, so it isn't a violation of your free speech rights to stop you from repeating it." That's unworkable, authoritarian bullshit, exactly as we see with copyright.

    29. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if he is the goddamn Adolf Hitler, his crimes don't justify the crimes committed against him in the name of American copyright protectionism.

    30. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.

      It confirms something I've long known: DRM only really inconveniences non-infringers. Warez kids and movie bootleggers have ways around it. Your average person at home trying to figure out how to space-shift his blu-ray so it plays in his car media center for the kids will not.

    31. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Bullcrap. No one believes in "information should be free" because otherwise they're all hypocrites.

      Copyright is in exchange for opening up the copyrighted material to the Public Domain. That hasn't happened for many years. Happy Birthday, a poem from the 1800s set to a song from the 1800s is still in copyright, and when it finally expires (under current rules, they can be extended again), it will be about 200 years old. Copyright violated the rules. Not us. We are trying to honor copyright as conceived and written. Old and abandoned works are "free".

    32. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      DRM is fairly effective

      All it takes is a single person to crack it, and no knowledge is needed from anyone else. Search for a popular movie title and "free download" and you'll find 100 sites claiming to have it. At least 10% actually have it. No knowledge needed to crack it.

    33. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nothing in the "copyright cartel" (whatever that is supposed to be)

      When will you learn to use the internets, including important features like a search engine? But frankly, I believe that your obtuseness is entirely disingenuous. You cannot have an interest in this subject and not be familiar with that phrase.

      What does stop people from doing this is the knowledge the people who actually have the money to do such a thing have: that they'd be spending a lot of money and never get it back.

      Of course they would. They'd make a profit, too. They might not be able to make the kind of fuck-you profits they make now, not least through that aforementioned creative accounting.

      No, it isn't a viable model. THAT'S why nobody has done it yet. Not because of some mythical "copyright cartel" that prevents someone from doing it.

      It's not about prevention. It's about not being able to compete with someone who is successfully gaming the system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We are trying to honor copyright as conceived and written. Old and abandoned works are "free".

      I have no argument with you when it comes to truly "old and abandoned" works where there is no possible way the original copyright holder could benefit from copyright protections. But I don't believe that the latest episode of Dr. Who, or the finale to Breaking Bad, or most of what is pirated today, are "old and abandoned" in any sense of the word. I've yet to hear the excuse "the copyright holder isn't selling that movie made 40 years ago anymore, so I feel it's ok to pirate it". What I do hear is "the copyright holder doesn't want to sell that current content in my region, or in the format I want it in, so I feel it's ok to pirate it. I'd happily pay for it, but the seller doesn't want my money!"

      I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that the piracy issue is all about "old and abandoned works", and I don't think any of the case against KDC has anything to do with content that has been abandoned or is older than 20 years, much less old enough to be public domain under previous versions of the copyright law. I don't think the **AA has gone after anyone for pirating "It's A Wonderful Life" or "Zero Hour", but they seem to find a lot of targets for violations of modern, currently published work's copyright.

    35. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Of course they would. They'd make a profit, too.

      Who is being disingenuous here? Why would they make a profit when anyone who does a quick google for what they're selling would find it for half price or even less from someone else? Other people can sell for those prices because they didn't have the production costs -- it costs almost nothing to dupe a DVD, but it costs a lot of money to produce a good quality movie. Nobody who is smart enough to have a couple of million dollars to spend on producing a movie would be dumb enough to accept the nonsense that he'll make anything back on it if anyone who wants to can copy and distribute it for him for free. That's why it isn't a standard model for movie production, not any "copyright cartel" stopping him.

      It's not about prevention. It's about not being able to compete with someone who is successfully gaming the system.

      What competition? If you can make a quality movie under CC licensing, then what competition is there? Oh, yes, the competition from people who will copy your movie and sell it for you, keeping the profit instead of giving it back to you. But there's no competition from the "copyright cartel". They can't stop you from making your movie or distributing it. So what if they make other movies that compete for eyeballs with yours? You've made the movie, you're distributing it. It doesn't matter if they are CC or analy-restrictive licensed -- under either licensing scheme their movies will compete for sales with yours, so how it is licensed doesn't matter.

      It's odd that you think that you as a producer of a CC movie would have competition enough to stop you from other movie producers, but that you wouldn't have significant direct and immediate competition from other people selling your movie for you. That's just, well, weird. We live in a world of Chinese knock-offs causing significant damage to US technology firms and yet you think allowing everyone to knock-off a major motion picture would not harm the original investors at all.

    36. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      There are piles of abandonware. And lots of books printed with a short run. But anything made after Mickey Mouse will be protected to the end of time. There are books that will be lost because the runs were short, and you can't copy them. The author is dead, and often the people who inherited "other" from the estate don't even know they are a copyright holder of a book, let alone what to do with it. Speaking of which, what does happen? My father is dead. He had involvement in a number of books (he was a history professor, among other things), and copyright isn't something documents and puts somewhere. So if I do own a copyright, I don't know, and can't know. Any copyrighted work of his is lost forever.

      Copyright is provably doing the opposite of what the Constitution requires of it. Thus (at least in my opinion), all copyright law in the US is unconstitutional.

      I don't think the **AA has gone after anyone for pirating "It's A Wonderful Life" or "Zero Hour", but they seem to find a lot of targets for violations of modern, currently published work's copyright.

      You want old, but enforced like a Nazi? Try Happy Birthday...

    37. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Who is being disingenuous here?

      You, if you either claim not to know what the "copyright cartel" is, or claim to be interested in copyright. Both cannot reasonably be true.

      Why would they make a profit when anyone who does a quick google for what they're selling would find it for half price or even less from someone else?

      Because they get the money up front, that's how this sort of thing works, you are not very smart.

      But there's no competition from the "copyright cartel". They can't stop you from making your movie or distributing it.

      Wow, you're staggeringly stupid. People aren't going to pay for movies up front when they have the option to pay for movies which have already been made, because they are too stupid to realize that in the current system, they're paying for movies that they're not even watching. That's called competition, boy. Here's a nickel, you don't need it to access dictionary.com.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "This is nothing but yet another one of his charades and PR stunts. "

      Indeed - but no matter what, there are laws and due process to be followed.

      The New Zealand police have a long history of bypassing laws when it suits them, despite what the New Zealand public is led to believe. (It's worth checking out http://laudafinem.com/ - which is blocked for people from within New Zealand, with no supporting legal paperwork)

        That's probably why they and the FBI thought they could get away with it.

    39. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      There are piles of abandonware.

      I didn't say there wasn't. What I actually said was that I never hear anyone using "abandoned" as the excuse for skirting, or outright breaking, copyright law. Don't argue with me over things I didn't say.

      And lots of books printed with a short run.

      Books printed with a short run aren't the definition of "abandoned". Lots of things are produced "with a short run" and are hardly abandoned. The phrase is "limited edition".

      But anything made after Mickey Mouse will be protected to the end of time.

      I doubt that. Can you cite any law that says that?

      There are books that will be lost because the runs were short, and you can't copy them. The author is dead, and often the people who inherited "other" from the estate don't even know they are a copyright holder of a book, let alone what to do with it.

      You're getting closer to abandoned, but haven't quite reached it yet. Let's see, how do we handle this situation legally? Maybe you ASK the copyright holder if the book can be archived? You know who it is even if they themselves don't. Educate them.

      Any copyrighted work of his is lost forever.

      Here's what I see in the copyright law regarding length of copyrights. I'm going to paraphrase because it's full of legal twists, but the basics seem to be:

      1. Copyright after 1978: life of author plus 70 years.

      2. Before 1978 in initial copyright: 28 years from the initial copyright.

      I'll not bother with "before 1978 already extended" or any of the optional extension mechanisms. I doubt your father had done that if it wasn't part of the estate papers. In either 1 or 2, the work is hardly "lost forever". All you have to do is not extend the copyright (and you seem unlikely to do that) and the copyright will expire. If there was a copyright, all you have to do as heir is release the material to the public domain. If it was initially copyright before 1978, it will have already become public domain! (1978+28=2006)

      It will only be lost forever if someone throws up their hands and burns all his books as a protest to an incorrect belief that copyright lasts forever.

      Now, your comment about "Mickey Mouse". I don't think anyone can use Mickey Mouse or any Disney property as an example of "abandoned".

      You want old, but enforced like a Nazi?

      I know I didn't say anything even close to that.

      Try Happy Birthday...

      If "Happy Birthday" is still in copyright, it is only because it has not been abandoned. Arguing that abandoned works should not be under copyright anymore (an idea with which I've already told you I agree) and then using an example that is so clearly not abandoned is simply ridiculous.

    40. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why would they make a profit when anyone who does a quick google for what they're selling would find it for half price or even less from someone else?

      Because they get the money up front, that's how this sort of thing works, you are not very smart.

      I don't know what kind of comic book fantasy world you live in, but nobody who sells stuff gets money "up front" when nobody is buying anything from them. If someone else can knock off the movie I produced with my own money and sell it for 1/10 the price, then I don't get anything "up front" but the fun of spending a lot of money for a movie I can't get any money back on.

      Wow, you're staggeringly stupid. People aren't going to pay for movies up front when they have the option to pay for movies which have already been made,

      I'm sorry, does this have anything to do with what I said? Your "copyright cartel" cannot stop me from making a movie or selling it. They can only be a "copyright cartel" for other people who have made movies, and it doesn't matter if the other movies are under copyright or not, they're still competition. In fact, if they are under copyright, and the copyright owner is restricting distribution, those other movies are LESS competition because they will cost more and be harder to buy.

      because they are too stupid to realize that in the current system, they're paying for movies that they're not even watching.

      Your statement makes zero sense and has no relevance to the argument. Your ad hominem is boring.

    41. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You were so interested in proving every one of my statements wrong, you didn't address the point. Try again. Who holds the copyright of my father's writings? Who can re-print them? If the "rightful" copyright owner doesn't know he is, how is that not abandonware?

    42. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You were so interested in proving every one of my statements wrong, you didn't address the point. Try again. Who holds the copyright of my father's writings?

      I'm sorry, but when I started commenting on this I didn't know your father held any copyrights, so that could hardly be my point, now could it? I responded specifically to your statements about honoring copyright as it should be and then about how "old and abandoned" should be free. (I even AGREED with you, so yes, I deserve a long drawn-out argument about "old and abandoned" works being copyrighted for too long.) People who "honor copyright as it should be" by distributing the latest movies or TV shows aren't dealing with "old and abandoned", and nobody who argues that they're only breaking copyright laws because "the vendor won't sell it to me in the format I want" is coming even close to dealing with this "old and abandoned" issue.

      If your argument is that "old and abandoned" works still have copyright thus all copyrights are invalid constitutionally, well, sorry, but that's just silly. The vast majority of copyrights are unregistered and expire (now) at "life+70", and if the material was produced prior to 1978 and hasn't been extended the material is already public domain. That's hardly "forever", and while it is perhaps longer than it should be, it is certainly not a reason to claim the system is unconstitutional.

      Who holds the copyright of my father's writings?

      I do believe if you read what I wrote you'll see I did answer that question, even though I certainly am not the right person to ask because I don't have any specifics. Here's the answers:

      1. If your father's works were initially copyrighted prior to 1978, then NOBODY owns the copyright -- it's all public domain now. Remember -- 1978+28 = 2006. It's been public domain for at least 8 years. Was there an extension? I don't know -- ask the copyright office. Any extensions are not default, they must be requested.

      2. If they were copyrighted after 1 Jan 1978, then someone holds the copyright until 70 years after he died. You didn't tell me when that was so I cannot answer with a specific date. Now, who holds that copyright? If you recall, I said that you, as the heir, probably do, or whoever the heir is. I said that all it would take is for you as the heir to put the material in public domain and the copyright would be ended and the books freely copyable.

      So, you need to step up and accept the inheritance and solve the problem you complain of. In either case, those books are not "lost forever". The copyright will run out no later than, umm, 2014+70=2084, but it may have run out already, OR you (or the actual heirs) could decide to end it earlier.

      Now, it is possible that your father assigned the copyright to someone else. You need to look in the books you fear are lost forever to see what the actual copyright statement says. Year and who -- two items that must be there. What do those copyright notices say?

      Who can re-print them?

      Sigh. For anything copyrighted prior to 1978, anyone can reprint them now. For anything after that, anyone who the copyright holder authorizes can reprint them, unless the copyright holder (the heirs) rescinds copyright and turns the material over to the public domain and then the answer is "anyone". If you want a specific answer by name, I'm sorry, I can't tell you who the heirs were, nor have you said a word about what the actual copyright notice in the material says. I have a list of who "anyone" is, but the margins are too limited to allow inclusion here.

      If the "rightful" copyright owner doesn't know he is, how is that not abandonware?

      If the copyright holder doesn't know he is, then who is going to file a lawsuit for violation of copyright law? Do you really imagine that any of the material involved in the KDC legal hassles is based on copyright holders who don't know they are? I do

    43. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If they were copyrighted after 1 Jan 1978, then someone holds the copyright until 70 years after he died. You didn't tell me when that was so I cannot answer with a specific date. Now, who holds that copyright? If you recall, I said that you, as the heir, probably do, or whoever the heir is. I said that all it would take is for you as the heir to put the material in public domain and the copyright would be ended and the books freely copyable.

      Most of his time as a history professor is after that, and he died 3 years ago. Jointly my sister and I split everything from his estate, once it's settled (it hasn't been yet, for someone over 80, who never thought he'd make it to 50, he sure left a mess of an estate). And the point was more to the fact that, without records, I don't know what he owns or shares copyright over. So anything he wrote is abandoned. I could spend time and money tracking them down, but why spend time and money on something that's likely worthless?

      If the copyright holder doesn't know he is, then who is going to file a lawsuit for violation of copyright law?

      As has happened with games, someone sees someone else making money, and goes after them. People who didn't get clear title over something, and those sorts of things. If you make money, you become a target. If I saw something that sounded like his specialty making money, I'd look into it enough to figure out of my father was aware of it, just for general curiosity. And if he was, then I could start up trouble. Not that I think that would ever happen, but that it could, so it discourages people from building on the works of others. Copyright does the opposite of its stated purpose, and since the stated purpose is clear in the Constitution, I believe that makes all copyright law in the USA unconstitutional.

    44. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      And the point was more to the fact that, without records, I don't know what he owns or shares copyright over. So anything he wrote is abandoned.

      Only if the copyright holder says so. If that's you and/or your sister, then fine, you can abandon both the material and the copyright there is no limit on who can republish the material. Your fear that it will be lost forever because it will forever be subject to copyright is not a problem.

      And if it is you, if you never go after anyone who republishes the works, who cares if the copyright is still technically active?

      I could spend time and money tracking them down,

      Antecedent of "them" is? The actual copyright holder? Look at the notice. People who republish the material? If you don't care that they do, then why are you obsessing over who holds the copyright? If it's you and you don't care, are you going to sue? If it's not you you can't sue.

      As has happened with games, someone sees someone else making money, and goes after them.

      If you don't hold the copyright to something, you have no grounds to sue. And the copyright holder needs to know he is before he knows he has grounds to sue. Yeah, anyone can file suit for anything, I guess, but a valid suit requires standing.

      People who didn't get clear title over something, and those sorts of things.

      People who "didn't get clear title" aren't people who don't know they have a copyright, they are people who think they do. Your question about people who don't know they hold a copyright doesn't apply, so I guess the answer I gave wouldn't apply, either. "I think I hold the copyright" is a much different issue than "I don't know I hold a copyright."

      If I saw something that sounded like his specialty making money, I'd look into it enough to figure out of my father was aware of it, just for general curiosity. And if he was, then I could start up trouble.

      Someone in the same specialty making money would trigger your interest in protecting a copyright that you don't know you hold and are actively arguing should not exist because of the "old and abandoned" status of the work you're now protecting? That really does stretch meaning of "abandoned".

      Of course you can start up trouble by filing specious and unfounded lawsuits. Does copyright really have anything to do with it? That's more an issue of tort reform and not copyright.

      Not that I think that would ever happen, but that it could, so it discourages people from building on the works of others.

      Republishing your father's books is not "building on the works of others", it is reproducing the works of others for profit. But even so, let's say someone does republish a book. How can they prevent legal issues? By contacting the copyright holder as listed in the copyright notice in the book they intend to duplicate, first step. If you say "sure, go ahead, I think it should be public domain anyway", why would they be discouraged? Yes, they may want it in writing, so?

      Copyright does the opposite of its stated purpose, and since the stated purpose is clear in the Constitution, I believe that makes all copyright law in the USA unconstitutional.

      Well, I can see how you think that when you have said that anything after Mickey Mouse has copyright forever. The law doesn't actually say that, so, I guess I'll agree that the law as YOU know it is unconstitutional but the law as it exists is not.

      Now, a final question might be, if someone sees a book your father wrote and reads the copyright notice, but doesn't feel like going to the trouble of asking/finding the copyright holder to get permission to reprint it, then are they really that interested in reprinting it in the first place? I'd say "no". That, I fear, would be the real reason that those works disappear forever, not a copyright law that says the copyright on it expires no later than 2081, and can be dealt with by a simple approval otherwise.

    45. Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Only if the copyright holder says so. If that's you and/or your sister, then fine, you can abandon both the material and the copyright there is no limit on who can republish the material. Your fear that it will be lost forever because it will forever be subject to copyright is not a problem.

      Copyright keeps it from being used for another 67 years. After that time it will be lost forever (as it will have been abandoned so long nobody will be aware of it). If I knew exactly what I owned copyright over, I could free it. But I can't without identifying everything. Copyright actively harms the amount of material that makes it into the public domain. The opposite of what it's asserted to do.

  11. from TFA he seems to regret a lot more. by nimbius · · Score: 2

    KDC seems to regret having ever placed good faith and trust in the criminal justice system as it applies to the united states and international community, and clearly with good reason. His violent raid, the united states illegal seisure of the majority of his income, and his criminal prosecution despite 3 independent lawfirms under his employ having confirmed no such action could or would transpire. KDC regrets not taking the MPAA more seriously, because the MPAA has extremely powerful political connections and can rewrite rules as it sees fit. It can escalate your extradition, exacerbate your arrest, and fleece your civil liberties all under the guise of the free market and "intellectual property" law. The most appropriate response to the MPAA is not litigation, but mobile theatre ballistic missile.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:from TFA he seems to regret a lot more. by Minwee · · Score: 1

      the MPAA has extremely powerful political connections and can rewrite rules as it sees fit. It can escalate your extradition, exacerbate your arrest, and fleece your civil liberties all under the guise of the free market and "intellectual property" law.

      And if not only his in-house legal council but also three outside firms working for him were completely unaware of this, then perhaps they stick to watching re-runs of Matlock and leave the practise of law to the big kids.

    2. Re: from TFA he seems to regret a lot more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guilty by association: you do business with someone who messes with MPAA/RIAA, expect the MPAA/RIAA to mess with you. And unlike the "anonymous" kiddies, they're powerful and effective. I think you should think twice before throwing your lot with the weak side, just saying.

  12. Different kind of risk by Xelios · · Score: 1

    Maybe there wasn't a legal risk that would have held up in court. What all that legal council evidently failed to mention is the very real threat of crippling litigation that, while ultimately unsuccessful, could still wipe you out in the process.

    I guess that's one thing separating the 'good' legal council from the 'best'. The former will stop at examining the laws, the latter will also examine all the ways the laws could be abused to achieve the same result.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    1. Re:Different kind of risk by PPH · · Score: 1

      This.

      It wasn't the law that got Kim. It was the politics and the Powers That Be behind our government not liking what he was up to. Legal council is supposed to inform one of legal risk. Assessing business risk was up to Kim. Where he got into trouble was stepping into a legal gray area that his attorneys could not have foreseen: The ability of entities like the RIAA and MPAA to utilize US law enforcement assets to protect their business interests.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    What they got blindsided by was criminal charges, where they'd be sent to jail.

    Nobody involved with enabling massive copyright infringement (for good or ill, let's save that for other arguments please) is ignorant of the fact that the USA has criminal copyright infringement. It's a ridiculous idea that to suggest that they were blindsided by this. What's happening here is that Kim is making a statement for the record, which is actually a lie, and it's being amplified and rebroadcast by the masses of asses, like slashdot editors.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. In fairness... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4

    It's not entirely unreasonable for him to have legally evaluated them as an industry actor with a potential for engaging in civil litigation as a strategic measure in order to advance their business objectives.

    Being surprised that the money was only the beginning, and they had enough pull to obtain the (illegal) cooperation of New Zealand's clandestine services, a well armed raid on his residence(rather than a nasty subpoena at work), and nearly unlimited FBI access to an investigation and set of evidence in New Zealand, followed by the sort of dogged prosecution-by-any-means from Uncle Sam that you usually have to move a lot of cocaine or deal in embarassing state secrets to earn is somewhat understandable.

  15. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

    FYI, Dotcom wasn't living in the US.

    He had never lived in the US.

  16. Sure he didn't by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    This is exactly comparable to someone with lung cancer who started smoking in 2002 and saying "I wish I'd known there was a risk."

    What he needs to do next is figure out how to frame himself as a victim. If only he was brown or female instead of a fat white man. Everyone knows fat white men are the last approved object of public ridicule.

    --
    -Styopa
  17. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    FYI, Dotcom wasn't living in the US.

    He had never lived in the US.

    You are just like my ISP. When I raise a salient point, you prevaricate. I tell them that their service frequently does not get my packets to the internet, they quote link uptime statistics. I give a fat fuck whether my radio link was up, if its radio link was down, and I couldn't get to the 'net. And likewise, I give a fat fuck whether Kim was living in the USA, because a) he was doing business in the USA and b) if you assume that the long arm of the USA ends at our borders, you're a fucking moron who ignores history and the news. There is no evidence that he is actually that stupid. If he were, he'd be locked up right now, not chillin' in a mansion in NZ.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Vicarious infringement by tepples · · Score: 1

    So he's being charged with some made up offense

    Vicarious infringement is defined as profiting from infringements that you have power to stop. A policy of paying users who share infringing copies of popular files is pretty good evidence of profiting from infringement. Safe harbor laws such as OCILLA exist in many countries to protect site operators from having to pay excessive damages due to accidental vicarious infringement, but it appears Megaupload didn't take steps to qualify for these safe harbors.

    which isn't a law anywhere.

    What do you mean by "isn't a law"? New Zealand and the United States are common-law jurisdictions, which rely heavily on how previous judges have interpreted statutes.

    1. Re:Vicarious infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DMCA is intended to be such a save haven law, and megaupload complied to the letter. The MAFIAA's complaint was that the letter wasn't good enough and they wanted to be able to shut down anything instantly without review or consequence ala youtube, and that megaupload should have gotten into the business of donating its time to enforce their copyrights on their behalf so that they would not have to find infringing files on their own.

    2. Re:Vicarious infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DMCA is intended to be such a save haven law, and megaupload complied to the letter.

      There service was fine as it was setup, this is why it passed the lawyer test. However, KDC and his coworkers were sharing links to stuff they knew was pirated. If you know stuff is pirated on your server, you lose protection. If you knowingly and intentionally profit from such illegal material, you face even stiffer penalties. DMCA does not say that you can knowingly pirate stuff as long as no one complains.

    3. Re:Vicarious infringement by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The DMCA is intended to be such a save haven law, and megaupload complied to the letter

      No they didn't. That's the problem -- removing a link but allowing a file to remain on your system which you've been alerted infringes, that is clearly against the DMCA.

  19. I was confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First time I heard that name, I thought, "Cool name! How neat! I bet she's a hottie!"

    And then I thought, "Well, Kim is a common Korean name, so maybe it's a he".

    And then I Googled it, and found out it's a fat fuck!

    God dammit.

  20. Berne Convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I take it Kim believes the Berne Convention means absolutely nothing in New Zealand?

  21. us vs. them by Tom · · Score: 2

    Dotcom said via live video link from his mansion

    No need to read any further.

    Kimble isn't "one of us", and never was. He's a career criminal, just like the MPAA and most politicians. He's not the Robin Hood his PR agency tries to create, he's just the sheriffs jealous brother. Same breed, same morality, and given half the chance, he'll fuck you over the same way for a quick buck.

    I wish /. would spend less time on these celebrity spectacles and more on the people who actually make a difference, who actually are on our side, whose interest goes beyond having a mansion and a private helicopter.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:us vs. them by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      I wish /. would spend less time on these celebrity spectacles and more on the people who actually make a difference, who actually are on our side, whose interest goes beyond having a mansion and a private helicopter.

      That's the whole point. Kim Dotcom is able to reach the masses that don't even know about slashdot. So just hanging around on slashdot going on about Michael Geist, Derek Khanna, the EFF, etc. is like going on about a rare stamp among stamp collectors. Nobody else knows/cares. So a widely-known name is what we need so badly. A popular, public figurehead that takes on the Copyright MAFIAA openly and that can't be "crushed like a bug" quite easily like Aaron Swartz was. Unfortunately that takes a lot of money, so you need even more "lots of" money so you can just don't care and easily spend it on top-notch lawyers.

      So who is our big Anti-"IP Chapter in the TPP" guy/gal? Who's our big Let's-Bring-Copyright-terms-back-to-2-times-14 guy/gal? What Heroes of the Digital Age would auntie Ethel be able to name? You'd be surprised how many people know about Kim Dotcom, especially Down Under and among Kiwis.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    2. Re:us vs. them by Tom · · Score: 2

      That's the whole point. Kim Dotcom is able to reach the masses that don't even know about slashdot.

      Yes, that exactly is the problem. Every aspiring dicator learns in propaganda 101 to control the story. Having someone like Kimble be the "face" of file sharing is a smart move. He's an asshole, a criminal, he's rich out of touch with reality. He's not the guy that John and Jane feel close to. He's just another "celebrity" scandal.

      A popular, public figurehead that takes on the Copyright MAFIAA openly and that can't be "crushed like a bug"

      Oh, please. Kimble will sell out his friends to cut a deal. That's not an assumption - he's done it before. He will not fight this fight for you. He'll bail out at the first good opportunity.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  22. Disruptive companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anybody who is exploiting a disruptive technique MUST assume that the existing players in that market segment will act to protect their profits

    Sure the music industry is corrupt to the core, sure they deliver little value for what they charge, sure they are strangling an industry

    BUT, anybody who is going to drop a bomb on their income stream MUST be prepared for them to defend their revenues, even at the cost of the entire industry

    Anybody that wants to disrupt the must (entertainment) industry and SAVE it should be familiar with the story of MP3.com

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com#History

    MP3.com was my personal playlist for years. I got NEW music, unheard of artists and great fun with tracks like "The Terrible Secret of Space"

    MP3.com started offering personal cloud storage. The music industry noted that copyrighted material was being stored there... and at the end of the lawsuit Vivendi owned all of their assets and turned it into another place to purchase run of the mill musical dreck

    we need the Kim Dotcoms and the Mp3.coms, we do NOT need them to stumble blindly into the same trap time and time again

  23. Re:Lies. 100% Lies. by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A greedy moron who realized that he could become wealthy as a parasite, but somehow claims to not realize that eventually his wealth would not protect him from prosecution for his crimes. And yes, these were real crimes. This Isn't a guy who copied a couple of video tapes for personal use. He engaged in massive copyright infringement to enrich himself by stealing other people's work.

  24. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He might've done business in the US, but the government ignored the proper legal process in Kim's country. The US thinks it is the world police that can do as it pleases (including enforcing draconian copyright laws), so hopefully they fail in this instance.

  25. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    He might've done business in the US, but the government ignored the proper legal process in Kim's country. The US thinks it is the world police that can do as it pleases (including enforcing draconian copyright laws), so hopefully they fail in this instance.

    I hope they (we, etc) fail here too, but it's not a foregone conclusion. We often succeed, and that's what someone needs to take away from history before assuming that it won't happen to them.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Re:Lies. 100% Lies. by AaronLS · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "to enrich himself"

    This is what really sets him apart from other copyright cases. He knowingly hosted massive amounts of copyright content, regardless of how it got there, and created a system that gained him massive revenue from it.

  27. He has the worst lawyers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They can't convict a husband and wife for the same crime!"

  28. Re:Lies. 100% Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    So... Just like YouTube? And any number of other sites?

  29. So much bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy banked hard off his streaming sites, the massive mansion he has in New Zealand is testament to that. The only reason he is repenting right now is because he is loaded and comfortable. He would do it all again.

  30. Hindsight is always 20/$65 m by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    I think what he actually regrets is not having the $65 million.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  31. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

    What's happening here is that Kim is making a statement for the record, which is actually a lie, and it's being amplified and rebroadcast by the masses of asses, like slashdot editors.

    Of course it's a lie. Megaupload's entire business plan was based on a perceived loophole in the DMCA takedown process that didn't exist.

    If two users uploaded the same file to Megaupload, they stored it on their servers once and provided different links to those two users. If a movie studio filed a DMCA takedown notice and provided one of those links, Megaupload would disable just the link mentioned and leave any other links to that file active. The DMCA says that once you're aware that a file is infringing, you have to stop distributing that file. You can disagree with the DMCA as a law and a treaty, but it does not take a lawyer to realize that Megaupload was blatantly violating it.

    The thing that really got Megaupload in trouble was incentivizing piracy. They had an affiliate program that would pay people cash if the files they uploaded were downloaded a lot. Which gets more downloads, Dr. Who fan fiction or a copy of the latest X-Men movie? Management was completely aware of what was going on because they discuss it in emails. By paying people to upload pirated material, that's a conspiracy.

  32. His problem is that he wasn't Dropbox by quax · · Score: 2

    They have Condi Rice on the board of directors and know how to 'play nice'.

  33. ah huh by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Oh really? They took all his stuff and ruined his company and now he wished he wouldn't have been such an arrogant fat bastard. If only he also took seriously how the entire world hates him.

  34. "from his mansion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you. The rest of us are all doing legal things for a living, like digging ditches, and hoping to put food on our table this week.

  35. Re:Lies. 100% Lies. by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

    And he is hiding some of what he stole by entrusting it to his wife and children...

  36. Re:Lies. 100% Lies. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

    And yes, these were real crimes.

    I would say that copyright infringement, whether on a massive scale or not, is pretty far down on the list of "real crimes."

    He engaged in massive copyright infringement to enrich himself by stealing other people's work.

    Copied. Also, I'm pretty sure it was his users. He may have benefited, but I don't think he directly did much of anything.

  37. Re:Lies. 100% Lies. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

    For example, I'd say that governments ignoring proper legal procedures and passing draconian laws because some corporate scumbags bribed them are real crimes.

  38. Misleading headline by J'raxis · · Score: 2

    Headline: Kim Dotcom Regrets Not Taking Copyright Law and MPAA "More Seriously"

    Article: "My biggest regret is I didn't take the threat of the copyright law and the MPAA seriously enough," Dotcom said ...

    Big difference between taking the law seriously and taking the threat of the law seriously. The headline implies that there's some sort of actual legitimacy to the law and that he's almost apologetic for doing something "wrong." The actual quote however is just a recognition that the government thugs are the thugs they are and the threat they represent is real.

  39. Re: It doesn't matter if he violated copyright law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then by all means follow the example of your big hero. Don't complain too much when the MPAA destroys your life. Do you understand that the fucking VICE PRESIDENT of yhe US is and has always been a MPAA/RIAA lawyer and lobbyist? What can you ever hope to do against such power?

  40. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes laws suddenly appear when an activity breaches the social threshold for good taste. It's not always obvious that new laws or interpretations with be unveiled in the pursuit of 'justice'

  41. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bingo, I wish I had some karma for this comment - it was the monetization structure that did them in. It's the same as where the feds aren't going to go after you for making copies of DVDs for your home collection and friends, but you're going to get dicked if you're distributing bootlegs en masse. MEGA is a much better business model for them since it achieves what they wanted from the start - the end-to-end and immunity from DMCA takedowns.

  42. He probably could have planned, ironically! by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    "You can't plan for stuff like that."

    He had $65 million in cash. If he had invested the $65 million in land in New Zealand (or a good portion of the $65 million), the US couldn't have taken his assets.

    So actually, he could have planned.

    A foreign government can't take your land.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:He probably could have planned, ironically! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He tried. The Ministry of Foreign investment (or something like that) blocked his purchase of the $50M house he's living in.

  43. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing did them in, because they haven't been found guilty in a court of law. If someone is going to execute an illegal raid, do you think they care whether you are actually breaking a law or not?

  44. Yes, NZ's political system is corrupt and broken by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 0

    Regardless of the rights and wrongs of KD's actions, one thing has been very strongly lighlighted by his arrival in NZ and the actions that have followed from that.

    When he first arrived, he was welcomed with open arms by the government, despite his shady past.

    Why?

    Well he had *lots* of money and was prepared to give some to the government and spend the rest locally.

    Yes, you *can* buy your way into New Zealand -- despite claims to the contrary.

    Then many people of power and influence hob-nobbed with KD, hoping perhaps that they'd get favours from him -- as indeed one politician did, to the tune of thousands of dollars contributed to his funds but not declared (later resulting in a conviction for that MP for filing false returns).

    Once KD had given huge sums of his money to the NZ government he was then of little further use to them so they were more than happy to help out their US overlords (the FBI and MPAA) by engaging in *unlawful* surveillance and an unlawful raid and asset seizure. Despite the illegality of these government-organised activities, nobody involved or responsible has been censured for breaking the law. How convenient, and another sign of deep-rooted corruption.

    Once KD dared to meddle in local politics by funding a party which stood at the last election, this was the final straw. The Prime Minister (whose office has been engaged in some *very* shady dealing with our Security Intelligence Service recently, prompting that agency to apologize to another opposition MP) has now obviously decided that it's time to kick KD to the curb.

    In any *real* democracy where people's rights are respected and the government and its agencies are required to obey the laws that they pass, there would be little problem. However, as has been seen by the massive trail of graft and corruption, plus the ongoing lack of accountability for wrong-doing on the part of the PM, his office and its agencies, it's unlikely that KD will get a fair deal at all.

    As I said... I don't give a damn whether KD is an angel or the devil incarnate -- his mere presence in this country has exposed the lie which is a claim that we are the least corrupt country on Earth. No... the truth is that, until now, we've been the best at covering up huge levels of corruption that are now exposed for all to see.

  45. from TFA he seems to regret a lot more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was confiscated was not just the property on KDC, I know ppl who used megaupload legitimately to store personal files - family photos for fucks sake, which have had those stolen from them illegally by law enforcement agencies.

  46. Re:Lies. 100% Lies. by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    Copyright infringement is not stealing! It should never have been criminalized. It should not even be a civil violation, or thought immoral or wrong. Sharing is a public good, and as such should be encouraged. Yes, encouraged. The government should never have tried to regulate sharing. Restricting copying was a terrible way to raise revenue for any purpose, and as for the stated purpose of enabling producers to profit and thereby encouraging more production, it is failing miserably. Instead, copyright and patent law are frequently misused to censor and suppress the very arts and sciences it was supposed to encourage.

    The real greedy scum in this show are the RIAA and MPAA members. Many people, and apparently you too, have swallowed their line of reasoning. They are nothing more than slimy monopolists. They squelch most art to keep the rest small enough for them to manage it all themselves. They own it, or they bury it. In doing so, they hold us all back. Who knows what scientific advances we would have now-- cures for cancer, solutions for famines, and so much more, if they had not created this climate of denial of knowledge.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  47. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of files that I'm legally allowed to access but you aren't. If we both put them on a file sharing site, and your copy was removed, I'd be pretty annoyed if my copy was too.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  48. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I give a fat fuck whether Kim was living in the USA, because a) he was doing business in the USA and b) if you assume that the long arm of the USA ends at our borders, you're a fucking moron who ignores history and the news.

    Rarely does the US actually go after people. The US knows the names of many of the drug dealers sending drugs into the US, but goes after Kim with more vigor than murderous drug dealers. It doesn't really make sense.

  49. Re: Lies. 100% Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like we "swallowed their line of thinking". We know the detrimental effects on society their stance has. We also know we can't do anything about it: they're simply too powerful. They can force governments to change laws. They can have secret treaties signed and enforced. Against such sheer power, what can we do? What can anyone do? I'm sorry but the cause is lost. They have won.

  50. Re: Few of us have inside and outside legal counse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you but I did want to mention that the payment thing was only on files under 100MB if I remember correctly. Kim mentioned that in his interviews many times. A movie is significantly larger than that.

  51. Re: Yes, NZ's political system is corrupt and brok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then after "all" saw this corruption they voted more corruption right back in again, right?

  52. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing did them in, because they haven't been found guilty in a court of law. If someone is going to execute an illegal raid, do you think they care whether you are actually breaking a law or not?

    For a given value of being done in... Even if it never goes to trial, that's an amazing amount of money that went *poof*.

  53. He probably could have planned, ironically! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You can't plan for stuff like that."

    He had $65 million in cash. If he had invested the $65 million in land in New Zealand (or a good portion of the $65 million), the US couldn't have taken his assets.

    So actually, he could have planned.

    A foreign government can't take your land.

    They can when the foreign government's goodwill is worth more to your host country than you are. Remember, citizens don't /actually/ own land, they just sublet it from the state.

  54. Re: Few of us have inside and outside legal counse by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    that the payment thing was only on files under 100MB

    X-men-XVID-HQ-MKV-part1.rar
    X-men-XVID-HQ-MKV-part2.rar
    X-men-XVID-HQ-MKV-part3.rar
    X-men-XVID-HQ-MKV-part4.rar

    etc etc.

  55. Re: He definitely did know and understand the risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rules? Money makes the rules. MPAA/RIAA make the rules. Deal with it. No argument in this world will ever change that.

  56. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of files that I'm legally allowed to access but you aren't.

    Sure. And nobody sends DMCA takedown requests for those files.

  57. Re: Lies. 100% Lies. by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    No, I do not agree with that defeatism. They have not won. In fact, their cause is a losing cause. And they know it. Secrecy and treaties tried as attempts to bypass legislatures are not signs of power, they're signs of weakness. Enforcement is utterly impractical. No organization has the power to force everyone to obey copyright. It only works somewhat because people are willing to obey it, thinking that doing so helps artists.

    What can we do? If we do nothing, they lose. The only way copyright cartels can win is if we help them win. Don't help them. That's all you and everyone else has to do. Don't buy DVDs or CDs, or devices that play them. Don't buy devices that enforce DRM. If you want to help, we can do a bit more than that. Use your public library, and not corporate bookstores (*cough* Amazon *cough*). Help crowdfund art projects. Tell your schools to use open, libre textbooks. Tell the library and politicians you want libraries and schools to have digital options for everything, as soon as possible.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  58. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure about that. It's well known that Megaupload was popular with some music producers for transferring work around.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  59. Re:Few of us have inside and outside legal counsel by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    Please allow me to make sense of it for you then.

    The drug dealers you reference are protected by the CIA since they are an extremely large source of the revenue stream used for the black budget projects which the government hides all information about at all costs.
    The MPAA and the RIAA are large campaign contributers to both political parties. They paid for and wrote our current copyright laws. Their money also has a large influence on how and when those laws are enforced.