Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom Says Legal Fight Has Left Him Broke

mrspoonsi writes Kim Dotcom, the founder of the seized file-sharing site Megaupload, has declared himself "broke". The entrepreneur said he had spent $10m (£6.4m) on legal costs since being arrested in New Zealand in 2012 and accused of internet piracy. Mr Dotcom had employed a local law firm to fight the US's attempt to extradite him, but his defence team stepped down a fortnight ago without explaining why. Mr Dotcom said he would now represent himself at a bail hearing on Thursday. He denies charges of racketeering, conspiring to commit copyright infringement and money laundering. He told a conference in London, via a video link, that his lawyers had resigned because he had run out of money. "The [US authorities] have certainly managed to drain my resources and dehydrate me, and without lawyers I am defenceless," he said. "They used that opportunity to try and get my bail revoked and that's what I'm facing."

117 comments

  1. says Kim by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    i don't believe him.

    1. Re:says Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i don't care. why do "kim dotcom" stories keep appearing here?

    2. Re:says Kim by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not? Bleeding somebody with endless litigation is a time honored practice here in the United Corporate States of America, why do you think so many corps can get away with so much shit that Joe and Jane Average can't?

      Hell we even have a word for it when corps do it to shut people up, its called a SLAPP and from what I hear it works quite well. Dotcom should feel lucky he only pissed off the corporate masters, because if he pissed off the 3 letter agencies he could have ended up like Assange, trapped in a tiny room for fear of getting a rendition ride.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:says Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because Kim has been "broke" many times after committing crimes (erm, after allegedly committing crimes, I think he's only been successfully prosecuted for a handful in germany). The guy since at least the 90s has been one huge publicity machine, doubting anything that comes out of his mouth is generally accepted as good practice these days ;)

    4. Re:says Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he shouldn't have spent so much money paying people to upload pirated stuff to his site...then he'd have more money...

    5. Re:says Kim by murdocj · · Score: 2

      Lying is also a time honored practice by (former) Internet CEOs. I wouldn't call Kim Dotcom "joe average".

    6. Re:says Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kim is thinking about buying Slashdot and calling himself Kim Slashdot Dotcom.

    7. Re:says Kim by deroby · · Score: 2

      I agree, if he had really been broke, he'd certainly would have proclaimed it MEGA-BROKE !

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    8. Re:says Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he will be known as Kim Slashdotcom

    9. Re:says Kim by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      He'll be taking slashdot's last name in the marriage and be Kim Dice.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    10. Re:says Kim by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They do look a lot alike.

    11. Re:says Kim by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      and dice says, no dice.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    12. Re:says Kim by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And how is what he is doing ANY different than the million pirate video sites Google is hosting the vids for and making $$$ in ad revenue off of? You go to ANY of the pirate streaming sites and guess where the video is hosted? YouTube. You can't tell me that Google is soooo fucking clueless they can't see a video suddenly getting traffic through the roof but hey, they are a big corp so that's ok,right?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:says Kim by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Because the travesty of justice made by illegally arresting him and seizing his assets is more important than the man himself.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  2. It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have spent that money on assassins instead of lawyers who just want to run the clock out so they can take all your money.

    1. Re:It happened by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Broke and his defense team quit without explanation. Can't imagine any connection there, eh?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:It happened by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously. For 10 million dollars he could of raised an army and taken over a small country. All he would have to do then is pass a law forbidding an extradition to America and he would of been set. 10 million dollars could have bought any number of extra-legal solutions to his problems.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:It happened by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> Seriously. For 10 million dollars he could of raised an army and taken over a small country. All he would have to do then is pass a law forbidding an extradition to America and he would of been set. 10 million dollars could have bought any number of extra-legal solutions to his problems.

      Is that some kind of slang?

    4. Re:It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. For 10 million dollars he could of raised an army and taken over a small country. All he would have to do then is pass a law forbidding an extradition to America and he would of been set. 10 million dollars could have bought any number of extra-legal solutions to his problems.

      It wasn't legal for FBI to seize his assets on NZ. They did that anyway.
      Taking over a small country and forbidding extradition to America won't help unless he keeps the army indefinitely and keeps it large enough to prevent any US three letter organization from bribing a guerrilla group to take over the country and put a friendly dictator in place.

    5. Re:It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He is mimicking Polandball.

    6. Re:It happened by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Yes. Google "ebonics" for the pidgin English that was going to be forced on a few due to cost cutting, but then effectively became mainstream due to cost cutting.

    7. Re:It happened by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kind have

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    8. Re:It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Couldn't even read TFS, hey?

      He told a conference in London, via a video link, that his lawyers had resigned because he had run out of money.

    9. Re: It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you some kind of pedantic dickhole?

    10. Re:It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muphry strikes?

    11. Re:It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm seriously impressed by the sheer number of misconceptions about language you managed to cram into such a small number of words. If you'd like a starting point for educating yourself, try Googling "AAVE is not SE with mistakes", which will address some (but not all) of the misconceptions in your post.

    12. Re: It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but you are.

    13. Re:It happened by dbIII · · Score: 0

      No misconceptions. Education was cut from the time of Reagan and the shit you read here is the result.

    14. Re:It happened by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Unlike the poor suckers who were sold short by budget cuts I had less need of educating myself. I had people who were paid to educate me instead of attempt childcare for oversized classes of teenagers.

    15. Re:It happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice, but unless you've since forgotten everything you learned, your education clearly didn't include anything related to linguistics, which is the topic at hand. Kindly refrain from pretending to understand the topic until you've learned some of the basics. Otherwise, you're nothing more than a vector for misinformation.

  3. Justice is served! by zentigger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't actually beat 'em, just bankrupt 'em or drive 'em to suicide!

    I love the modern concept of "justice"

    --

    the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    1. Re:Justice is served! by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Not quite sure that this is 'justice', though definitions have gotten rather shifty of late.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Justice is served! by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      considering the money he spent on extravagance, political campaigning and other crap I would hardly say he was bankrupted by the system. System may not have helped but his own spending is more of an issue here.

    3. Re:Justice is served! by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      If you can't actually beat 'em, just bankrupt 'em or drive 'em to suicide!

      I love the modern concept of "justice"

      They didn't bankrupt him; he did that. He could probably have hired less experienced lawyers to represent him. My guess is his lawyers were up-front about the rates and he decided to keep using them anyway.

      It's a bad system, and his choices sucked at the point where he had already committed what is technically a pretty major crime, but he still had choices.

      Pretty much everyone I've ever met--with a very few exceptions--believe that copyright violation should get noncommercial violaters no more than a small civil violation. Basically a ticket with no criminal record and a small fine.

      But this is commercial infringement. It's a big deal. The system still sucks, but is anyone claiming he's actually an innocent guy getting railroaded?

    4. Re:Justice is served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But this is commercial infringement. It's a big deal.

      "It's commercial, so it's a big deal." doesn't follow. I certainly don't agree that it's a "big deal."

      The system still sucks, but is anyone claiming he's actually an innocent guy getting railroaded?

      I claim that the government have violated all sorts of standard procedures and therefore deserves to suffer for it. It doesn't matter how 'bad' Kimmy is.

    5. Re:Justice is served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it serious, though? I get that he is likely to have violated the letter of the statutes, but it's my understanding that he was basically running an offsite storage service with de-duplication, so technically he would have been in volition, but in practice each of his customers would have had licenses, and if he hadn't been using de-duplication to save storage space, he may have been in the clear.

      So, if his external facing service was functionally identical to a non-infringing service, is it really a serious violation?

    6. Re:Justice is served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He could probably have hired less experienced lawyers to represent him. My guess is his lawyers were up-front about the rates and he decided to keep using them anyway.

      Eh, this is why we should just move to a Judge Dredd style of justice. People don't need legal counsel. The fuck is their problem with having their assets seized and being imprisoned effectively by a foreign power? They only have themselves to blame, amirite?

    7. Re:Justice is served! by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      'Erm' yeah, like cos you know, innocent until proven guilty because we don't believe you, when the you is the government and they have to prove their claims in a public court. This of course because without public courts governments have proven to be totally 100% corrupt when it comes to accusing people of crimes and basically chopping off their heads for all and sundry reasons. So yeah innocent and the government most definitely does not have the legal right to use the prosecutorial system as a penalty into and of itself. Which governments around the globe have been doing and especially which the corrupted US government has been doing, even going to the extreme of torturing people to death as part of that prosecutorial system, without even bothering with kangaroo military courts based upon nothing more than other claims made under torture. So yeah the legal system in the US has turned to utter shite, where the rich get off even when convicted, the poor get maximum sentences in forced labour prisons and foreigners die without trial.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re: Justice is served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is copyright infringement ever a serious crime to begin with? Is there a victim somewhere? It's been shown time and again that the bulk of infringements are not lost sales, so it's really just rich corporations crying "no fair!" because someone got to see/hear their stupid crap for free. Which boils down to "we're a bunch of babies who get butthurt when everyone doesn't play by our rules because we're obsessed with the illusion of power and control". I don't take their stupid monkey games seriously, and neither should anybody else. To be honest, that pretty much goes for just about anything relating to a corporation. Everything having to do with corporations is completely contrived, as a basis for extracting wealth from the populous, designed by the rich for the sole benefit of the rich. I don't take anything in that domain seriously because it's all just bullshit. Those guys are all just a big joke.

    9. Re:Justice is served! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Justice has always been about revenge above anything else. Otherwise there wouldn't be a death penalty because it isn't much of a deterrence, it provides no possibility of rehabilitation or repayment, it's just as effective as life in prison for societal protection, and denunciation is kind of a silly reason to punish someone.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    10. Re:Justice is served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the world would be better off with kim dottard in the gene pool.

    11. Re:Justice is served! by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's almost like you understood the point the person you were replying to made.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    12. Re: Justice is served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theseus, is that you? Liber8 awaits you.

    13. Re:Justice is served! by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I nearly get kind of close to approaching enlightenment.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    14. Re:Justice is served! by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      It's just an eye for an eye.

      Just think of all those musicians he has driven into bankruptcy by his unfettered permission of copyright infringements, like ehm... well... I'm sure we can come up with at least someone... anyone? Please?

    15. Re:Justice is served! by spintriae · · Score: 1
    16. Re:Justice is served! by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They didn't bankrupt him; he did that.

      That's splitting hairs. Without his legal team, he had been extradited by now.

      But this is commercial infringement.

      Highly doubtful. He offered free access to delete content, a system similar to the one that Youtube has implemented, and had an additional team of employees to deal with copyright complaints. Three different legal teams checked the business model and gave him the thumbs up.

      is anyone claiming he's actually an innocent guy getting railroaded?

      I find it very unlikely that he's actually guilty of criminal copyright infringement. You would think that this law is designed for people who actually infringe copyright, but apparently not in the US. If he's guilty, then thousands of file hosting companies that are still in business would be guilty as well, and the executive boards of the biggest copyright infringers on earth Google and Youtube would all have to be in maximum security prison by now.

      The problem is, however, that by "guilty" you might mean "guilty according to the faulty undue process of corrupt US justice, acting on illegaly obtained evidence and on the basis of breaking the laws of other souvereign nations". Well, in that case, he might indeed be guilty, although he still will still be able to make a pretty good case. The US does in fact not even have jurisdiction over his company, they had to resort to mind-boggling legal tricks to still be able to reach him -- tricks that no souvereign nation should allow to be pulled, but apparently some of them like New Zealand and UK are nothing more than additional states of the US.

    17. Re:Justice is served! by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Finding stories about artists screwed and finally bankrupted by the music industry directly is easy - there are many more of those. I was looking for stories of artists that actually suffered direct, attributable losses to megaupload and related file sharing sites.

    18. Re:Justice is served! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      When you look up "entitlement" there's a picture Kim Dotcom.

    19. Re:Justice is served! by hodet · · Score: 1

      Yam enough of the poor Kim articles. I only have so much self-righteous rage to go around. Sounds like he made his bed, now he can sleep in it.

    20. Re:Justice is served! by hodet · · Score: 1

      mmm yams. Meant ya.

    21. Re:Justice is served! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is, no matter how much of a douchbag you think he is the fact that he is fighting illegal actions by the US government against a citizen of another country is enough lend your support. Sometimes you have to support scoundrels if you want to support freedom.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Justice is served! by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      And being convicted as a felon isn't a guarantee of repayment either or rehabilitation. Prison isn't about rehabilitation its about punishment always has been. I hear its really hard getting a job after having served there time.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    23. Re:Justice is served! by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      So... Where are those three legal teams now that gave him the incorrect information that has led him to this situation?

      They should be defending him if he followed their paid advice and ended up in hot water as a result.

      All three teams would agree that this is a cut and dry case and step in to defend him.

    24. Re:Justice is served! by Tom · · Score: 1

      and had an additional team of employees to deal with copyright complaints.

      By encouraging it and actively looking to get high-profile illegal content uploaded, yes. Did you miss all the news about what the prosecution discovered in their internal e-mails and stuff?

      I find it very unlikely that he's actually guilty of criminal copyright infringement.

      Given his history, even without knowing anything about this case at all, my bet would've been on his guilt. He's a career criminal, he's been convicted before, changed countries at least twice to avoid the legal consequences of his actions - yeah, I would be more surprised if he were innocent.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    25. Re:Justice is served! by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The thing is, no matter how much of a douchbag you think he is the fact that he is fighting illegal actions by the US government against a citizen of another country is enough lend your support. Sometimes you have to support scoundrels if you want to support freedom.

      NO I really don't. There are so many genuine cases happening all the time where people are being treated like shit by the government that there is no needed to support a scumbag, especially a rich piece of shit scumbag that has no one to blame but himself for his situation.

    26. Re:Justice is served! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then it will set precedent and next time it will you. Have fun.

  4. Liar! by Rolman · · Score: 1

    It was his album.

    --
    - Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
  5. aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by whatever3003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    try selling your mansion.

    --
    "Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." -- Salvador Dali
    1. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      It's not his, he's renting it. But of course you'd know that if you'd read this story when it was posted on Tuesday.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the guy isn't good at maintaining his finances. Wouldn't you think purchasing your real estate is a much better investment than renting? Did the US Government make him go broke or did he do it himself? I'm guessing him (or this is a ploy and he's not actually broke). What did his lawyers do for the 10 million?

    3. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Purchasing your permanent residence isn't necessarily the best financial decision you can make. Unless you're buying a hotel or some other business that earns a profit with that purchase of land, it's probably cheaper in the long run to rent it instead. Buying land on speculation that the property prices will increase is not always the smartest thing to do with your money as you normally have little control over the property prices of your area. This specific investment strategy is probably nothing more than gambling and gamblers do not necessarily make good investors.

    4. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying rent is paying (back) someone else's mortgage, maintenance and profit.

      Buying is paying your own mortgage and maintenance. AND you get to sell the property at the end for a non-zero value.

      Buying is always the better option.

    5. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by sharkbiter · · Score: 0

      Off-topic but just to present a counterpoise -- My property was purchased for 5 figures in 1998, prior to the real estate bubble in 2007, it was appraised at 6 figures (exactly twice the original price), If I had sold it at this point, the story would have ended. However, after 2008 it was worth 1 and a half times the price. Further, to complicate matters, a real estate developer opened up a new street and houses right at my fence-line. Now the new tenents of the new houses could look right into my back yard from their rear windows. Property value was now 1 and a quarter the original price (just a grand past 6 figures).

      I had to work away from the property for a while and hired a person to look after the property. He had to move his brother in to watch it for the better part of 24/7 as the local heroin addicts were stealing copper and everything else that they could to support their stupidity and obsession with getting as much heroin in their veins as was humanly possible. While the property was unwatched over a week-end, the drug abusers stripped out all the copper pipes, destroyed the heat exchanger and took as much electrical wiring as was possible.

      It's in a good neighborhood, I can't say as much for my "neighbors" however.

      The property is now valued at the price of the greatly diminished lot value: 18000 dollars. I lost 70000 plus interest, electricity, water, sewage, maintenance and theft.

      And before you say "You should have sold it in 2007!", I say "My mother didn't raise any psychics. Let's see you do better."

    6. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The property is now valued at the price of the greatly diminished lot value: 18000 dollars

      Which is 18000 more than you'd be getting back from paying rent. And that's probably less than the amount you saved on your taxes via mortgage interest deductions.

    7. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the heroin addicts, a few placed IEDs and a couple of good snipers should solve that problem fairly well. It would probably be cheaper to hire some bouncers while hiring people to look after it, they would probably welcome the change for a while.

    8. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. If he did any major work to that house before it was trashed, then he's probably actually in the red. People who tout home ownership as a wise investment often only show you the trends of property value growth, assuming that property values "always go up" without even taking into account costs associated with maintaining a home or taking into account inflation. It is amazing that people still tow this line even after 2008 proved that there are far better investments than a home, even though it is another load of BS that's been dropped onto us by the Baby Boomer generation.

      That isn't to say that it is necessarily a bad idea to own a house, but there are far better ways to invest your money if you're solely concerned for the numbers.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/05/10/why-your-home-is-not-a-good-investment/8900911/

      http://www.myonemoney.com/inside-edge/money/278-why-owning-a-home-is-a-bad-investment--but-often-a-smart-decision

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-americans-think-owning-a-home-is-better-for-them-than-it-is/2014/04/21/5e9f4dd2-c979-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html

    9. Re: aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? They said they lost at least 70k in the "investment". It's not likely they would have spent anywhere near that much on rent.

    10. Re:aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't allowed to buy that property - it exceeded some value whereby he, as a foreign national, had to get government permission to buy it. He sought and was denied that permission.

      He does own the house next door (where his now estranged wife and kids live) but it's much smaller.

  6. Next move by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Troll

    He needs money, maybe he can do something to make money, like, you know, start up a web site to share stuff? In North Korea? He's a match for their glorious leader's ideology.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re: Next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt the poverty stricken North Korean population has the money to spend on file sharing websites when most of them don't even have internet.

  7. Legal costs by precisenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, the legal costs to defend himself are totally what did it... Not the $4million failed political campaign he ran this year, or the failed music album, or the extravagant lifestyle he lives...

    1. Re:Legal costs by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently he once spent over $1M to charter a yacht and throw nonstop parties during the Monaco Grand Prix. Hard to feel sorry for someone who pisses away $1M in 3 days on parties. As if the multiple convictions for fraud, espionage, and embezzlement weren't enough...

    2. Re:Legal costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how much do you think it should cost you to defend yourself? He spent over $10 million thus far. Our legal systems are utterly broken and its irrelevant what he spent his millions on. It shouldn't have cost him anything. The government should be responsible for covering BOTH sides legal costs and neither should be be provided more than the other. The way the legal system works it's one sided. You settle or lose everything fighting it and then you lose at trial too. People don't lose because they're in the wrong. They lose because NOBODY can put more into the fight than the government. The government has unlimited resources comparatively speaking to any one individual.

    3. Re:Legal costs by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Well, of course! After all that, how could he pay for those legal costs? Not to mention the fact that they cut off his main source of income - megaupload.com.

      Without having to defend himself from all that legislation I'm sure he wouldn't have been bankrupt now. Or at least, not yet.

    4. Re:Legal costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And divorce of his trophy wife.

  8. aw, my heart bleeds for you, Kim by precisenz · · Score: 1

    I agree with your sentiment, but he doesn't even own that

  9. Here's a plan by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Change you name to Kim Putin, and no one will mess with you.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Here's a plan by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I had "Kim Jong Putin" floating around up there for a while, but decided not to use it. Damn.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Here's a plan by seoras · · Score: 1

      If he'd changed his name to Kim Turkey he might have gotten a Presidential Pardon today.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/every-thanksgiving-the-president-pardons-a-turkey-or-two-whats-the-point/2014/11/20/1b6a69da-63ab-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

    3. Re:Here's a plan by Minwee · · Score: 1
  10. Billionaires wanted by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I was a billionaire, I would kick him a few mil. Its fun to have someone stand up to these turkeys. He did appear to be winning and putting egg on the face of the americans for a while there.

    We must remember that the USA tried to pluck a citizen from another country by strong arming their justice department. As a non US citizen, fuck all that shit. US law isnt world law and god forbid that ever becomes so. It is so enough already as it is!

    --
    -
    1. Re:Billionaires wanted by T-Bone_142 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If I was a billionaire, I would kick him a few mil. Its fun to have someone stand up to these turkeys. He did appear to be winning and putting egg on the face of the americans for a while there.

      We must remember that the USA tried to pluck a citizen from another country by strong arming their justice department. As a non US citizen, fuck all that shit. US law isnt world law and god forbid that ever becomes so. It is so enough already as it is!

      If you were a billionaire you would probability be in the same country club as those turkeys and have a vested interest in the mater.

      --
      "In Soviet America, Passport Stamps You!"
    2. Re:Billionaires wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were a billionaire you would probability be in the same country club as those turkeys and have a vested interest in the mater.

      Right, because all billionaires made their money dealing in digital media.

      Oh wait ... actually many billionaires didn't.

      So your point is worthless. Have you considered suicide ? It's your best chance to contribute
      to mankind in a positive way.

    3. Re: Billionaires wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lame

    4. Re:Billionaires wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? so he can throw more away on frivolous luxuries, ridiculous political campaigns and gambling? luckily people with your sense of wise spending rarely get to be billionaires. This isn't some saintly person sticking it to the government, this is a career criminal that spends money like it was water to ensure he lives in pure luxury. The US government are turds at best, but Kim is as bad if not worse.

    5. Re:Billionaires wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was a billionaire, I would kick him a few mil. Its fun to have someone stand up to these turkeys. He did appear to be winning and putting egg on the face of the americans for a while there.

      We must remember that the USA tried to pluck a citizen from another country by strong arming their justice department. As a non US citizen, fuck all that shit. US law isnt world law and god forbid that ever becomes so. It is so enough already as it is!

      Mess with the best, die like the rest. USA #1.

    6. Re:Billionaires wanted by worf_mo · · Score: 1

      If you were a billionaire you would probability be in the same country club as those turkeys and have a vested interest in the mater.

      I don't know why a billionaire would be interested in the turkeys' mother but hey, whatever floats your boat.

  11. Real test if he's broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wife leaves him, he's broker

    Wife stays with him, he's got some cash stashed away

  12. Wife has the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you live in New Zealand, where we are bombarded with dotcom's every move, you would know that he:

    - moved most of his shares and assets into a trust his wife and children are beneficiaries of and that he has no legal association with.
    - became estranged from his wife, (though she still lives on the same property).

    In other words, if the MPAA wants the rest of his assets they will have to heartlessly go after an innocent looking young mother apparently trying to come to terms with a broken marriage.

    He will likely apply for legal aid now and the NZ tax payer will have to fund the rest of his legal bills.

    1. Re:Wife has the money by _merlin · · Score: 2

      You know, I wonder if that isn't just a smart business move on his part. Break up with wife on paper so she and the kids get the money and MafiAA can't take it away from them. Worst that can happen is they drag his fat arse off to jail, and daddy becomes a martyr who stuck it to THE MAN.

    2. Re:Wife has the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      And Jesus, the cost to feed that man in prison could bankrupt NZ...

    3. Re: Wife has the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the guy may be many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He's been playing those shitheads like a fiddle fire the past decade, why stop now?

    4. Re:Wife has the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like an excellent reason to reform trust law to stop this sort of bullshit.

    5. Re:Wife has the money by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Most countries have reformed trust laws and such a tactic would not legally hide any of the money, I would be shocked if they haven't also addressed these laws in NZ as this tactic has been addressed in many other countries.

    6. Re:Wife has the money by drkim · · Score: 1

      You know, I wonder if that isn't just a smart business move on his part...

      Let's review, shall we?

      Mrs. Dotcom:
      http://i0.wp.com/www.whaleoil....

      Mr. Dotcom:
      http://assets.hightimes.com/ki...

      I bet when the money is gone, she will be too...
      The lovely couple:
      http://bilder.bild.de/fotos/bu...

    7. Re:Wife has the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be that Dotcom is still german citizen: and in germany the assets of the wife are safe, if he was smart he might get away with this. As long as his wife does not leave as well, that is.

      We had a case a few years ago where some idiot tanked his ahh-so-shiny company (he took cheap MP3 players from china and attempted to just re-brand them as luxuary hardware) - but there was not much to get as his wife (some once-famous person) owned all other assets of the marriage (she's multimillionaire in her own rights).

    8. Re: Wife has the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst that can happen is they drag his fat arse off to jail

      Or the wife could keep the money and ditch him. He has no legal way to get back at those assets if she does that.

    9. Re:Wife has the money by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between assets that were always hers or earned by her and those that are transferred to her to hide them. They are generally treated differently by most countries to prevent people using this as a method to hide assets in these situations.

    10. Re: Wife has the money by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in his position would you rather have the assets in a trust fund for your kids, or appropriated by the MafiAA? Even if the wife leaves, his kids ultimately get the proceeds of the fund.

  13. IANAL, but... by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

    ...is he able to get a public defender?

    1. Re:IANAL, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. A public defender is not available for extradition hearings. He is trying to stay in Auckland.

  14. Cry me a fuckin' river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did he make this declaration from the mansion we last heard from him from?

    What's the address of it? I'll call him a whaaaaambulance.

  15. The Kim Dotcom Bubble by kamathln · · Score: 1

    The Kim Dotcom Bubble .. has popped ?

    1. Re:The Kim Dotcom Bubble by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      *golfclap*

  16. Fucking Hypocrites! by danthemanvsqz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't be nice if the US Government went after the assets of the bankers on Wall Street who commit fraud and launder money in the same way they've gone after Kim.com.

    1. Re:Fucking Hypocrites! by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      US Government take care of there own and yes you are right but as usual the rich get away and the middleclass and poor are the one who always pay. Its less costly to put away drug dealers and put up cameras to catch red light runners mostly people stuck in the middle of the intersection because of poor light design and placement.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  17. I've a really hard time sympathizing. by jd · · Score: 2

    A parasite (he didn't get a fleet of flashy cars by donating disk space to anyone) gets sucked dry by a bigger, nastier parasite.

    Sorry, but if you live by a dog-eat-dog creed, don't expect tears when your pet poodle is a predator's desert.

    I'm sympathetic with ISOhunt, who got crippled by the UK government, as I'm willing to bet that people after illegal ISOs searched elsewhere. They're a major source of information on ISOs for F/L/OS software, though, which is entirely legal. They got a raw deal on that, because of the bad name the *AA have given torrents. Blocking the others won't do the UK any good, but that's not the point. Nor is it the point that these services index, not host. The point is that it doesn't matter whether the links point to legitimate or illegitimate content, they're tarnished not by what they index but by the mode of transport used.

    Kim DotCom is another matter. He raked in an awful lot of money by doing very very little. He'd make a great bank CEO or politician, such is his level of verminicity. Had he done essentially the same, with far less profit (it's ok for him to live, just not ok for him to own half the cars in New Zealand), far less arrogance (like I said, a bank CEO or politician), and far less swagger (maybe, just maybe a touch of humility), I might pity him more. The humble earn at least some respect for being humble. It's rare enough.

    If he'd presented his service as "common carrier", then that too would be worth respect. That's legal, that's all about NOT looking at what's there and NOT being shot in the process. DotCom's approach was to be a braggart. Sorry, but that kills any respect.

    As judges are renown for disliking the arrogant, swaggering braggart type, that might well have cost him every court case contested. Even on the rare occasion that justice is blind, it still has a sense of smell and arrogant, swaggering braggarts stink.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. I just don't get that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it envy? Watching what probably is a huge miscarriage of justice and just saying "well, duh -- he is a dork anyway so he prolly deserves it"?

    Hello?

    The justice system running amok *is the problem*, and the fact that it is running amok on someone you don't happen to like (I don't either, jftr) just doesn't matter. He deserves the same justice you and me deserve.

    1. Re:I just don't get that. by jd · · Score: 2

      I agree the justice system has gone haywire.

      I agree the justice system has no business going haywire.

      I agree the justice system has no business treating one person differently from another.

      I agree that what was done was completely wrong, not just in this case but in many others.

      I've said as much, repeatedly, on The Guardian's website on relevant topics. This isn't a new opinion for me.

      There is a difference between having no sympathy for the guy (IMHO he deserved it) and agreeing with the justice system. I agree, and always have, with Tolkien's phrasing of it: "Deserved death? I daresay he did. I daresay there are many who live who deserve to die. I daresay there are many who've died who deserve life. Can you give them that also?" Whilst I admit that I'm "quick to judge" on occasion, I heed Tolkien's words and do not believe that "deserving" is sufficient to warrant inflicting what is "deserved". I do not believe retribution is a functional way to go about things. Trashing a hard drive with a sledgehammer might stop bugs in software affecting you, but it doesn't actually fix anything. To do that, you have to not inflict retribution but therapy, fixing the defects.

      The same is true of people. Fixing the defects of character is harder, but certainly achievable in most cases. That pays attention to Tolkien/Gandalf's advice, leaves the world a richer place, and is generally a Good Thing. It's also cheaper than inflicting punishment. A lot cheaper, if the world is a lot richer for it.

      He has smarts, he has savvy, with a little examination of why he chose the path he was on and some tests, it would not be hard to figure out how he could either offer the same service in essentially the same way in a protected manner, or (if he preferred) to do something different but that makes use of his skills and knowledge.

      Bankrupting him has left the world poorer, because there's no way on Earth anyone will convince him to be more charitable and considerate now, and that's the only way the world would ever benefit from his skills and know-how.

      To me, this is simple economics. At vast expense, the US has turned a person who was merely dysfunctional but a potential asset nonetheless to society if he could be persuaded into a dysfunctional wreck with a chip on his shoulder the size of the Empire State Building who is never going to let the world see the positive in his abilities. In short, by clocking up a huge liability, the US has achieved the dubious distinction of turning an asset into an additional liability.

      I hold that there is always a solution that is both economically sound and ethically sound over the long term, over society as a whole, and that on closer examination, such solutions will always be superior to those that appear ethically sound but are economically unsound. Most of what is truly ethical is also a boost to some key aspect - to a person, society or planet - in the long term that is in excess of the cost, and thus will automatically be also economically sensible. Everything that is truly unethical may produce some short term benefit of some kind to some person, but is invariably expensive to everyone and everything in the long run. In consequence, even the ethical things with no obvious benefits will be cheaper than the great burdens created by the unethical.

      I would not do well in a Star Trek universe.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  19. Wasting money by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Perhaps he shouldn't have spent $3M trying to corrupt the government with his failed political party.
    It all worked out in the end, the incumbent party he was trying to take down gathered even more votes that the previous election.

    1. Re:Wasting money by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he shouldn't have spent $3M trying to corrupt the government with his failed political party.
      It all worked out in the end, the incumbent party he was trying to take down gathered even more votes that the previous election.

      We don't all carry a NZ flag to wave around in a patriotic frenzy, and most of us can't remember more than the first 6 words of the national anthem, but dammit he shouldn't have attacked our Prime Minister, thats our job.

      If the paperwork had been properly prepared and everybody had sought the appropriate legal advice in the first place, he woulda been pushed into a plane when they first stormed his rent-a-manor instead of being left to waste taxpayers money here in Auckland, not to mention the man hours wasted by our legal system etc. Personally I think he should just head over to the US to prove his innocence in their courts, then *if* he makes it back, he can re-assess how well NZers accept him as the people's hero, and not a moment before that.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  20. says Kim by MarcNicholas · · Score: 1

    I just don't understand what the leader of North Korea is doing in New Zealand....and I had no idea he was behind a copyright infringement service, but I guess that means that all the rumours of him being "evil" are true?! :-o

  21. If he's dead broke by tomhath · · Score: 1

    He could change his name to Kim Clinton. Probably have over $100M in the bank in a couple of years.

  22. about time by Tom · · Score: 1

    Sure, there were blunders and probably a few laws were broken during his prosecution, but to all the fools rooting for Kimble here I say: About time justice finally caught up with this guy who's been a career criminal for most of his life, sold out his friends to the law before to get a better deal for himself, and has dodged prison by changing country too often already.

    I hope they put him away for good.

    And I hope his fanclub here will learn the difference between downloading movies for free and rooting for freedom. It really is such a shit that "free" in english means two completely different things.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org