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."
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
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...
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.
Change you name to Kim Putin, and no one will mess with you.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
>> 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?
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!
-
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.
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.
Kind have
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
And Jesus, the cost to feed that man in prison could bankrupt NZ...
Lying is also a time honored practice by (former) Internet CEOs. I wouldn't call Kim Dotcom "joe average".
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.
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)
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)
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.