Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom Sues New Zealand For $6.8 Billion In Damages Over Erroneous Arrest (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Kim Dotcom, the founder of file-sharing site Megaupload, is suing the New Zealand government for billions of dollars in damages over his arrest in 2012. The internet entrepreneur is fighting extradition to the U.S. to stand trial for copyright infringement and fraud. Mr Dotcom says an invalid arrest warrant negated all charges against him. He is seeking damages for destruction to his business and loss of reputation. Accountants calculate that the Megaupload group of companies would be worth $10 billion today, had it not been shut down during the raid. As he was a 68% shareholder in the business, Mr Dotcom has asked for damages going up to $6.8 billion. He is also considering taking similar action against the Hong Kong government. As stated in documents filed with the High Court, Mr Dotcom is also seeking damages for: all lost business opportunities since 2012, his legal costs, loss of investments he made to the mansion he was renting, his lost opportunity to purchase the mansion, and loss of reputation.

121 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Bring it on big guy. by MoaDweeb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah the Police didn't have a valid warrant, spied on him illegally and chucked his MittleEurope ass in pokey.

    That's all fine 'cos they were doing the bidding of The Mouse and our Govt was only too keen to dry hump the US Govt's leg.
    Got one of our previous Prime Minister's a number of golf games with ex-Pres. Obama though.

    However I think his chance of getting through or not being deported are slim. Although he has seen off 2 PMs thus far maybe he will see off a third?

    --
    New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    1. Re:Bring it on big guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He pissed off the wrong people. He is learning that justice is a farce. It doesn't matter how right he is, he will receive none, and will only delay the roasting they have every intention of giving him.

      This is how power actually works in the real world. You get pretensions of justice if you basically follow the rules and don't piss off any of the people who actually matter.

      Apart from that, you are cattle, and will be treated as such.

    2. Re:Bring it on big guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      lol. great! let him get paid so he'll be forced to pay it all to microsoft, etc, when they sue him for damages for piracy that WE ALL KNOW he helped commit.

      Are you forgetting that he didn't violate the laws in his own country, or do you just not care?

    3. Re:Bring it on big guy. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Well as long as his arrest made Obama happy that's all that matters, right?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Bring it on big guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it's not, that's stupid.

      In the real world, there really are super-rich people. They aren't in hiding. This is an objective fact.

      And it's also a fact that their wealth depends on control over the digital representation of ideas. This is not some secret conspiracy, it's just business.

      With great wealth comes tremendous power. They control more economic resources than you or I will ever even encounter. Their natural relationship with politicians and law enforcement is one you and I will never have. Their incentives are plain as day.

      They get what they want. We are just a means to their ends. Our participation in politics is just a smoke-and-mirrors show to make us feel like we have some say in the decisions that they have already made.

      We receive justice to the degree that fortune puts us in a position of moderate wealth....and to the degree that the super-rich do not care.

      And there is not SHIT we can do about it. It is impossible for us poverty-stricken (by comparison) rabble to get and stay organized enough to bring even a fraction of the necessary political force to bear to resist them. Nor can we assassinate them, as their kin will immediately arise to fill the void.

      The game is over, they won. And they did so long before you and I were born. That's just the way it is, and it will not change.

    5. Re:Bring it on big guy. by MoaDweeb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      However the NZ Govt did illegally clone a whole bunch of servers etc. and send them to the US.
      Whilst -as has been correctly pointed out- breached no New Zealand laws and the Fat German (who at the tome was a NZ resident and now citizen BTW) had never been to the US.

      To be fair this is not really an Obama thing but more a Joe Biden thing. Apparently he is the one in the pocket of Big Media but Obama still gave the go-ahead and played golf with his mate John Key.

      Interesting that the right-wing party in NZ -National- has so much in common with the Democrats, putatively the US 'left'.
      Our main 'left' party (Labour) is the one that ate all the free trade bullshot of Thatcher and Reagan back in the late '80s.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    6. Re: Bring it on big guy. by mSparks43 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have the wrong folk hero. Kim Dotcom ran a competitor to dropbox, not thepiratebay.

    7. Re:Bring it on big guy. by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The high court is New Zealand is hugely different to the corrupt US top court where all sorts of paid for fanciful interpretations are allowed. The high priest of law system is in place ie the judges are scrupulous on the letter of the law interpretation, not happy rewrite the law, don't try to get us to corruptly interpret it like the US. So it would not have lasted any where near this long, if the New Zealand government was not fucked and knew it and was extending it out to forgotten history and a reasonable payout whereby the US governments foots the bill.

      It was shit from the beginning and now the New Zealand government is stuck with the mess, their back legs stuck in US gumboots and the US riding them for all they are worth. Probable easiest route, stick it to the US, allow Kim to sue the US government through the New Zealand government and let it go a bunch more years.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Bring it on big guy. by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Informative

      The high court is New Zealand is hugely different to the corrupt US top court where all sorts of paid for fanciful interpretations are allowed. The high priest of law system is in place ie the judges are scrupulous on the letter of the law interpretation, not happy rewrite the law, don't try to get us to corruptly interpret it like the US. So it would not have lasted any where near this long, if the New Zealand government was not fucked and knew it and was extending it out to forgotten history and a reasonable payout whereby the US governments foots the bill.

      Its the difference an english style justice system makes. One of the fatal mistakes the US has made with its justitce system is the way it appoints judges has become utterly politicized, to the point where , somewhat bafflingly, in some states they actually vote for them, which has led to mindboggling corruption in so many cases.. There should be no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" judge, its an absurdity.
      More to the point, where theres electoral politics , even in the case of indirect electoral politics (Ie appointment of judges by elected officials) theres always the chance of corruption where interests can say "Give us this judge who we know always votes against consumers in copyright cases, and we'll throw another million into the electoral fund"

      The way the rest of the world does it, the court apoints new judges as the need emerges, with the government simply approving the choices. If the govt intervenes it better have a damn good reason, or theres trouble.

      Here in australia we had one case recently where the previous conservative government in Queensland (Its kind of like our Arizona, meth lab of democracy), put some crazy asshole with almost no qualification into the supreme court, throwing a huge protest up from the supreme court itself because it was unconscionable interference with the courts by a government that repeatedly kept violating the constitution and federal laws and thus had come into pretty serious conflict with the court. Fortunately the dodgy appointment soon realised he was way out of his depth and quit.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re:Bring it on big guy. by johanw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And next time he will even more strictly assure he does not do buissiness with any company fro a shithole country like the US.

    10. Re:Bring it on big guy. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2

      He has money and he's standing up for piracy and pirates in general.

      He's hiring good lawyers and fighting the good fight. He might set some precedents that will be useful later.

      He's just lucky in that he was already successful before they came after him so he can do a reasonable job on his defense. Most piracy cases are targetting people who can't afford to defend themselves so their defense is weak and the precedents set are scary and horrible.

      I don't think Kim really cares about the money he'd get from this, but he's interested in setting precedents that are good for piracy in general and we should applaud him.

  2. Can't but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't but wish him the best and hope he succeed. Not because of whom he is but to make sure government knows if it oversteps it's boundaries and relinquishes sovereignty to USA it would come with a high price. Hope they also jail every national traitor involved.

    1. Re:Can't but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the price we all end up paying for letting dickheads get chosen as our representatives. Don't misplace your hate.

    2. Re:Can't but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Accountants calculate" - yeah, utter bullshit. If Mega hadn't been shut down the way it was, it would have been shut down in half a dozen other ways, or sued into oblivion.

      So why didn't they go for the last alternative that is legal?
      Or one of the alternatives that isn't a crime worse than what they were trying to stop?

      Having to pay $2000 is a pretty small price to pay for letting law enforcement play Rambo.
      If you elected a government that makes law enforcement do things by the book you would have gotten away much cheaper.
      A side effect of having a government where accountability is a thing is that those $2000 is nothing compared to all other savings.

    3. Re:Can't but by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Being translated, this means he's still as big a media whore as ever: much like certain other people I could mention, there is absolutely nothing he will not say or claim if he thinks there's a few headlines in it.

      That doesn't mean he's wrong, and it isn't relevant to whether the NZ authorities illegally caused him $6.8bn of losses.

      The man still owes money to hundreds of New Zealand tradespeople who've been gullible enough to do various jobs of work for him.

      It's pretty fucking hard to pay people when your financial assets have been stolen from you.

      I can easily believe this guy is a total cock but that's the thing with justice: It applies to everybody.

  3. Good luck to him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They should cough up. They destroyed him at the US government's whims. Now it's time to pay the piper.

    1. Re:Good luck to him by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could make a case for the responsible officials having their assets liquidated to help pay the bill. Also demand the U.S. pay a portion as a co-conspirator. But ethically, the money IS due. Law enforcement illegally destroying a multi-billion dollar business just because some foreign government said "jump" is pretty harsh as well.

      Don't worry, the bills will keep on coming. Plenty of people lost data, money, and opportunities as a result of this illegal action.

    2. Re:Good luck to him by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      We already did evaluate them and voted them out already.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    3. Re:Good luck to him by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could make a case for the responsible officials having their assets liquidated to help pay the bill. Also demand the U.S. pay a portion as a co-conspirator. But ethically, the money IS due. Law enforcement illegally destroying a multi-billion dollar business just because some foreign government said "jump" is pretty harsh as well.

      Don't worry, the bills will keep on coming. Plenty of people lost data, money, and opportunities as a result of this illegal action.

      Agreed. I never understood how govt officials seem to do whatever they want, but when caught the taxpayers are held responsible and the officials don't serve a day in jail or pay a dollar towards the lawsuit. How does that make sense?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Good luck to him by zantafio · · Score: 1

      you know Corporations also pay taxes in NZ

  4. Sure, wy not? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    They could award him 6.8 billion in Zimbabwe Dollars, pay him with a Trillion ZWD note, and tell him to keep the change. I'm sure Mr Dotcom would appreciate the irony.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  5. Re:Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, so you don't like him. Neither do I, for that matter.

    But is that a reason to violate his rights like that? How'd you like it to have everything taken away from you just because some jerkface government took a disliking to you?

    And that really is the problem. "We don't like you" is not supposed to be a valid reason for the law. No matter how loathsome the defendant.

  6. Sovereign immunity? by SLi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't there an equivalent of sovereign immunity in New Zealand? If I understand correctly, the sovereign immunity doctrine at least in the US would bar such a suit against the government. Sovereign immunity is the concept that a sovereign cannot be sued for damages except in cases where it has waived the immunity (for example, by having a law stating that it is responsible for damages in certain types of cases, usually with an upper limit).

    I presume no sane government would make a law that subjects the country to that large liabilities. Many countries have laws that provide for some kind of restitution from the state in the case of wrongful imprisonment, but it's hard to imagine an unlimited liability.

    If the officers of the state did wrong, it may be possible to sue them for damages (also in the US), but good luck collecting billions of dollars from them...

    1. Re:Sovereign immunity? by taustin · · Score: 3, Informative

      People sue, and win against, the federal government in the US on a regular basis. Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.

    2. Re:Sovereign immunity? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but Wikipedia says that sovereign immunity generally applies to immunity from foreign national courts.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that it is different in the US. Yet another reason not to live there

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    3. Re:Sovereign immunity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      AFAIK NZ does not have sovereign immunity , lots of people have successfully sued the government.

      NZ only has ONE police force, funded from central government funds. There are no elected law enforcement agents , and the head of any government department is also not forced to resign with any change of government. To become a judge is actually quite difficult in NZ, and is generally outside the sphere of political interference.

      NZ used to have access to the UK privy council for legal appeals, many cases were taken there against the government and rulings were made against the government.

      For wrongful imprisonment it depends on if you are found innocent vs not guilty, and there is a formula used to work out the payment, though the government has to approve final settlement, however this too can be appealed through the courts.

      If he can prove the losses, there is a good chance he could receive the compensation he asks for, however I suspect he is likely to get at most 10% of what he is asking for, though local Maori has successfully received compensation for over $1 Billion

    4. Re:Sovereign immunity? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      People sue, and win against, the federal government in the US on a regular basis. Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.

      But it does, as the original poster points out, require the government to agree to be sued. Yes, there are a series of things you can sue the government over enshrined in law, but this amounts to prior agreement to wave immunity in the cases covered by the laws.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Sovereign immunity? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Isn't there an equivalent of sovereign immunity in New Zealand? If I understand correctly, the sovereign immunity doctrine at least in the US would bar such a suit against the government. Sovereign immunity is the concept that a sovereign cannot be sued for damages except in cases where it has waived the immunity (for example, by having a law stating that it is responsible for damages in certain types of cases, usually with an upper limit).

      You are correct. But.... the US Federal Government permits itself to be sued all of the time. About the only time you can't sue the government is if you cannot show standing (the idea that YOU personally have been affected) or if the Fed's trot out the old "National Security" bullshit (which happens more often than people probably realize).

    6. Re:Sovereign immunity? by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

      Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.

      Actually it is. You can only sue when the government permits you to sue. The Supreme Court codified the idea of Sovereign Immunity quite a while ago. However, in practice, the government does permit itself to be sued quite often.

      If one thinks about it, Sovereign Immunity does make a bit of sense. You are suing the government in a government court. The court being a part of the government itself. You are effectively asking one branch of government to forcibly modify the behavior of another, coequal, branch.

      I'd liken it to, when you were a kid, and you had a gripe/complaint about your parents. You'd have to petition your parents for a change of rules or procedures. They would, of course, have to agree to hear your complaint in the first place. Then, if you were successful, they would have to agree to modify their behavior or change some rules, etc..

      If they decided, at the outset, that they didn't like your complaint, that was it.... game over.

    7. Re:Sovereign immunity? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but Wikipedia says that sovereign immunity generally applies to immunity from foreign national courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that it is different in the US. Yet another reason not to live there

      Well, that was a stupid statement. ALL GOVERNMENTS have sovereign immunity. ANY time you sue your government you are asking it to permit itself to be sued. If it refused, what the fuck could you do? Petition another government? Doesn't work like that. Some governments may have codified the absolute right to sue them, but the government itself passed the law and presumably could revoke said law any time it felt so inclined.

    8. Re:Sovereign immunity? by Knuckles · · Score: 2

      There's a difference whether the law that the state gave itself says "I am always right, you can't sue me", or not.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    9. Re:Sovereign immunity? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      I'd liken it to, when you were a kid, and you had a gripe/complaint about your parents. You'd have to petition your parents for a change of rules or procedures.

      If only there were a separate but co-equal someone to your parents you could petition for redress of your grievances. I'd liken it to, the US courts and the US legislature/executive branch.

    10. Re:Sovereign immunity? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      We're talking about New Zealand rather then America, which seems to have a stronger form of sovereign immunity then countries with a sovereign now. I don't know about New Zealand but here in Canada the legislature has pretty well got rid of sovereign immunity for torts so the people (but not necessarily the Provinces) are free to sue the Crown (when acting as the government) generally. I believe the UK is similar in that the people can sue the Crown in right of the government but not the actual Queen. Note that sovereign immunity is as much about governments not being able to sue other governments.
      Part of being a free country includes being able to sue the government for wrongs that government did.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:Sovereign immunity? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      In a free country, the people have to be able to sue the government when rights are trampled and many free countries have codified this in law. For a country to repeal that right of the people would be tyranny.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:Sovereign immunity? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Only if the government has decided that it can be sued for that issue. Sovereign immunity starts off absolute, and exceptions are only allowed when the government itself decides to allow them.

      Since New Zealand is part of the British Commonwealth, they share the UK's common law which includes sovereign immunity. So I too am curious if the kiwi government has allowed themselves to be sued in this manner.

    13. Re:Sovereign immunity? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Governments are held accountable to their constituents in different ways around the world.
      The USA said you can't sue us, but you have the right to arm yourself to the teeth.
      NZ said you can't own a gun and we can out fire you, but it's your constitutional right to hold us accountable in court.

      You'll find a lot of commonwealth nations followed the UK in this. The UK introduced laws that made the Crown liable in 1947. NZ followed suit in 1950, and that was subsequently added to their Bill of Rights.

      I presume no sane government would make a law that subjects the country to that large liabilities.

      Why not? Governments are much like people. It's not insane to be held liable or accountable. Many governments are built on foundations of restricting what the government can and can't do. Some write lengthy constitutions, others leave it up to the courts.

    14. Re:Sovereign immunity? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      I think sovereign immunity applies to criminal acts, not monetary liability. In Canada, our citizens have certain rights, and if the government doesn't respect those rights then they can be sued. I'm sure this varies by country. Best example for us was quite recent.

    15. Re:Sovereign immunity? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I'd liken it to, when you were a kid, and you had a gripe/complaint about your parents. You'd have to petition your parents for a change of rules or procedures.

      If only there were a separate but co-equal someone to your parents you could petition for redress of your grievances.

      There is (in the traditional family, at least). If Dad won't listen, you go to Mom, or vice versa. Of course, Mom and Dad generally have a very similar perspective, and have strong reasons to be closely aligned. Like branches of the government.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Sovereign immunity? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      In a free country, the people have to be able to sue the government when rights are trampled and many free countries have codified this in law. For a country to repeal that right of the people would be tyranny.

      It's still a version of sovereign immunity. When you sue the government, you are using one department/branch/facet of the government to rule/moderate/facilitate your lawsuit of another part of the government. Thus, in all governments that permit you to sue them, they are still consenting to allow themselves to be sued. There is no international law that would force any government to allow itself to be sued by its own citizen. All lawsuits against the government happen by consent of said government. There is no higher authority to appeal to.

    17. Re:Sovereign immunity? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Part of being a free country includes being able to sue the government for wrongs that government did.

      You are still asking said government to consent to be sued. Nobody can FORCE them to allow this. 100% of lawsuits against any government boil down to a voluntary situation. It doesn't matter if it's codified into law. The law is enforced by the government. Thus if the government enforces the law against itself to permit you to sue it, it's still a voluntary act. You can't appeal to anyone if they refuse. There is no higher authority to appeal to. If you petition whatever version of a Supreme Court, that might be applicable in your country, it's still the government ruling against/for itself. Y'all seem to be having a problem with this concept.

    18. Re:Sovereign immunity? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      True, but it is still a type of tyranny to remove that right.
      There's also the weirdness that here, the courts, acting in the name of the sovereign, can overrule the the elected government, who are governing in the name of the sovereign.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re:Sovereign immunity? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      All you are saying is that a government can go rogue and not rule by law. That's true, as might can make right, but it is still a form of tyranny.
      Think of it as a contract, one side can break it, especially if they have more power, but it doesn't make it right when they break it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re:Sovereign immunity? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Never implied it was right. I was merely stating the reality: No federal government on Earth can be sued unless it consents to be sued. For all aspects of the suit must be between facets/divisions/branches of said federal government, itself.

      It's a statement of fact, not right / wrong. There is no moral implication in ANYTHING that I said.

  7. Re: Mr. Dotcom? by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

    go kim !

  8. But we have had a change of government by LesFerg · · Score: 1

    I think he should be able to sue the National party and all members who were involved at the time.
    It was their decision to allow what happened.
    The rest of the government and the taxpayers of New Zealand should have no liability.
    Apart from that, I still don't understand why they haven't just pushed him onto a plane and sent him off to meet with the FBI or whoever.

    --
    If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    1. Re:But we have had a change of government by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I think he should be able to sue the National party and all members who were involved at the time. It was their decision to allow what happened. The rest of the government and the taxpayers of New Zealand should have no liability. Apart from that, I still don't understand why they haven't just pushed him onto a plane and sent him off to meet with the FBI or whoever.

      Are you mental? You are asking for a break in the chain of responsibility every time you have an election? Would all contracts signed with the previous government also become invalid?

      You do realize that under your moronic idea, your entire government would probably collapse right? How could ANYONE have any confidence in a government that could absolve itself of any/all responsibility for it's own actions every time an election took place and there was a change of power?

    2. Re:But we have had a change of government by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      I wasn't suggesting the government could absolve itself of ALL responsibility, just the correct placing of blame for those who dealt with that super criminal, who probably bribed one of them to get citizenship in the first place.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    3. Re:But we have had a change of government by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      There were a number of parties involved;
      -- Somebody in charge of the intelligence agency which decided to treat the man like a foreigner with no legal rights, having not read the newspapers or whatever to notice that he had gained citizenship already.
      -- A judge who signed surveillance and/or search warrants without noticing they were not the correct forms.
      -- An MP or person of ministerial persuasion who bowed to pressure from a foreign government and put pressure on one or more departments to take action without checking their facts first and getting the correct documentation together.

      What it comes down to is, Dotcom is basically taking his vengeance out on the people of New Zealand, as a dent of that size in the country's budget takes away from the taxpayers and does not punish a single member of the current government, the police force or the GCSB in any way whatsoever. It punishes the citizens. After we have already voted out the people who were in charge when he was mistreated.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    4. Re:But we have had a change of government by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      his criminal activity
      Please define his criminal activity that he has committed under NZ law.

      While you're at it, mull over this hypothetical:

      Homosexuality and the depiction of such is illegal in some countries. If someone performs in and distributes gay porn on the internet, should they be summarily extradited to one of those countries and suffer the consequences if that country demands it?

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    5. Re:But we have had a change of government by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

      Except, I am not a criminal. I am not hiding from another country's legal system, and have not made millions of dollars through dodgy practices.

      The problem with this is that the "protecting" legal system can often mistakenly punish the innocent or fail to deal appropriately with the guilty. In this case, the fact that some over-zealous officers of the law got their paperwork wrong does not alter the space-time continuum sufficiently to have prevented his criminal activity from happening in the first place

      Except currently he's not a criminal, legally anyway. He's not yet been convicted of anything. Heck, he's only been *accused* of something in a foreign jurisdiction not even in NZ. Until he is convicted then none of that is true, merely alleged.And allegations aren't enough to strip rights.

    6. Re:But we have had a change of government by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      What, are we going to have a vote now and decide he is innocent based on popular opinion?

      It's pretty damned obvious to a lot of people that he was complicate in numerous activities which bent the law in a lot of countries. Just because he skipped town and came to hide in NZ should not be a shield against such activities, at least not when that amount of money is involved.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    7. Re:But we have had a change of government by swillden · · Score: 2

      his criminal activity Please define his criminal activity that he has committed under NZ law.

      Well, New Zealand is a signatory to the Berne Convention and a member of the World Trade Organization, which not only means that New Zealand honors US copyrights (and vice versa), but that the countries have certain reciprocal obligations around enforcement.

      And although I haven't followed it closely, as I recall the NZ High Court endorsed Dotcom's extradition to the US last year. OTOH, that doesn't mean everything else the NZ police did was legal or correct, and their overreaching and screwups are the basis for this lawsuit.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:But we have had a change of government by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      The money concern is that people with great gobs of cash at their disposal get to go places others can't and get away with behavior that other cannot.
      The guy would not have got into our country without the wealth he held and the promise he was going to make investments here.
      The money he creamed from his internet activities came from other peoples work and intellectual properties (regardless of how much we hate the movie industry etc) and said money elevated him above the status of a normal citizen.
      You may not be able to see clear and well defined laws being broken but it is not a behavior we should allow or encourage. People have to be losing something, whether they recognize it or not, for somebody else to become incredibly wealthy. You may hate the corporations which finance, produce and profit from movies, but how else do the artists and creative people receive any income and ability to create the stuff we enjoy?
      No it's not the same as violence, rape or murder, but it is harming society, internet freedom and many other eventual outcomes you may not see as triggered by this sad episode here in NZ.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    9. Re:But we have had a change of government by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Then trial him for copyright infringement in his own country. There's no need for extradition if reciprocal obligations are in place.

      Oh wait, then the punishment would be much less severe and US corporations would not be able to have the satisfaction that they so urgently demand.

      This is the bit that sticks in most people's throats I think. The pandering to US corporate interests. Sure, the guy is a dick. But due process was not followed, and that dick has had his reputation trashed, his assets seized, and his company ruined. Not cool, guys, not cool at all.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  9. Hell Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I agree with this action. As a New Zealand I am ashamed of the way he was treated, more so over how the NZ Government bowed to pressure from the USA. 6.8 billion, sure - he's gone a a silly number knowing that if it settles he might get less than 10%. I actually hope he wins.

    1. Re:Hell Yes by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      As a New Zealander, I wish he wasn't even allowed in here in the first place.
      He's a convicted criminal and lied in his residency application.
      I don't care where he goes. Send him back to Hong Kong or Germany.

    2. Re:Hell Yes by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      He's far more likely to get 1% than he is to get 10%. Even that would probably be one of the largest payouts in a court case in NZ in a long time.

    3. Re:Hell Yes by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that should be 0.1% ($6.8M).

    4. Re:Hell Yes by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      And who in government or any government agency is "punished" by him taking this action?
      Not a one of them.
      Who suffers from this? New Zealanders, the taxpayers and those who rely on the things achieved with tax dollars. That is who suffers. Along with our legal system being tied up for gods know how many combined man hours, when they have plenty of work to do already.
      It would be much more useful if Dotcom were to identify specific individuals who did not follow the laws of the land, and tried to get specific actions taken against those that did the wrong thing.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    5. Re:Hell Yes by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Megaupload was worth more than that when he was arrested. That's like facebook being shutdown in 2012 and paying zuckerberg 6 million for it.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    6. Re:Hell Yes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And nothing of value would have been lost.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Suing for "damages" by Kokobaby39 · · Score: 1

    Hard core IRS here. The U.S. is sure run by the IRS that can only pay out in damages. That dude may have to disappear. Maybe move out.

  11. How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by dryriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Megaupload was a service (deliberately) overflowing with cracked copies of commercial software ranging in price from a few hundred Dollars to a few tens of thousands of Dollars - high end CAD software for example. THAT is largely what attracted millions of people to Megaupload - it was an online place where Kim Dotcom gave away thousands of software companies' products for free and people and also businesses in 196 countries could just "click and download for free". If you were to add together the monetary value of the software downloaded from Megaupload over the years and the financial damage caused, you might end up with far more than the "10 Billion Dollars" Kim claims Megaupload would have been worth today. Kim tried to make himself a billionaire businessmen by nonchalantly giving away other people's property without their permission. That does not excuse the nature of the police action against him, but I suspect that a strong message was intended to be sent to hundreds of other would-be-Kim-Dotcoms who wanted to hole themselves up in poorly governed countries with lax laws and build their very own "Megaupload". Kim Dotcom probably banked on the fact that if sued for piracy, he could claim "I just provide the servers - I'm not responsible for what people upload to them or download from them", and depending on the laws in New Zealand that might actually have worked for him. Kim was in New Zealand because there was no way his native Germany would have allowed the creation of something like Megaupload in the first place - German police would have shut the site down in weeks.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by youngone · · Score: 1
      The German police would have had trouble closing down a Hong Kong company, with servers in Hong Kong though.

      Kim Dotcom lived in New Zealand, but the Mega companies had nothing to do with either NZ or Germany.

    2. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is bullshit.

      I don't like Kim Dotcom, but Megaupload is in principle nothing different than Dropbox or OneDrive and even though he did not have to comply with the US DMCA law, he actually facilitated the US govt and removed things for which a take-down notice was issued.

      At some point he was asked by the US government to retain files that were 'pirated' on Megaupload's servers, which was later used against him. Even though there is proof that this was done at the behest of the government.

      The reason why Dropbox and OneDrive can exist is the fact that these are US companies. The US, not just the corporations, but its legal enforcer, the US government, will attempt stamp out any competition.

      On top of that, sending a anti-terror squad to his house to arrest him, while a letter from the justice department telling him to come to the nearest police office, would have had a similar, but somewhat less dramatic effect.

      He was meant to be made an example, with John Key sucking up to Obama and his RIAA/MPAA masters.

      As a kiwi I hope he doesn't make progress with his damages suit, but if it does, they should present the bill to hair pulling, too sleazy to be a second card dealer, John Key.

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    3. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      By that same logic, you should also calculate the "financial damage caused" by Uber (which is also in business by violating the law) to the taxi companies, you might also end up with far more than whatever Uber is worth today.

      True, wonder why they don't raid Uber's offices? They seem to be in trouble with some law somewhere every week.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mr. DotCom, please add "selective enforcement" to your list of grievances.

    5. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by Zorpheus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Though I didn't see a warez download link for Dropbox or OneDrive yet

    6. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by dryeo · · Score: 2

      They raided Uber in Quebec recently. Seems Uber has software to delete everything when the cops bust down the door. https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      Spot on. Totally agree, especially about the Germans not putting up with a bs web site with zero or no moderation over the content being posted.

      I mean seriously to all the knuckle heads commenting about liberties and freedoms... Just go and post a off topic comment and maybe throw in some abusive, pornographic or other illicit / illegal content on this discussion and just see how long your comment lasts before it is MODERATED.

      I think the judge will consider the nature of what the Megaupload business was and come to the conclusion that the business was worth nothing within the confines of the legal system by which he has to make a decision.

    8. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The monetary value of software downloaded has no relation at all to the financial damages experienced by a company. I admit, I downloaded AutoCAD. I would never in my right mind buy it. What did happen though is I learnt how to use it and subsequently I requested a copy for use in my office.

      The monetary damage of AutoCAD being available to me via megaupload is at present a large negative number.

    9. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have.

      I won't hold your ignorance against you in this case.
      It is expected that you haven't seen those links if you haven't actively tried to find something.
      Especially since torrents are so much more convenient and you only need to go to Mega/Dropbox/OneDrive if you are looking for stuff that are a bit more rare and perhaps not even sold in all regions.

      One good example is "abandonware" software that isn't games.
      If you are looking for some video editing program or whatnot for Amiga or some old DOS programs you aren't going to find those in the game collections that are floating around.

      Those are also still covered by copyright, but since the companies behind them have been sold back and forth a few times and some of the IP too but in different directions it is often not clear who really has the rights and the specific software in question might not even have been explicitly mentioned in any of the transfers.
      Typically some company just claims to have the rights because they bought something that had something to do with it once upon a time.
      They can usually not produce a non-cracked copy of the software to show that they got the master disks with the purchase.

    10. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      On the other side, I generally did not notice download links for the two. I saw lots of illegal content on Youtube though, which is quite comparable.

    11. Re:How Much Was The Pirated Software Worth? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Having copyrighted materials on your server is not necessarily illegal. Accessing them by one link may be legal and accessing them by another might be illegal. It can be very difficult to tell if one of the uploads was legal. It's hard to impossible to write satisfactory laws here.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. I feel conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Kim Dotcom is a wanker of the highest order, however having read the Statement of Claim I'd have to take his side.

    Facts are facts. The guy already got a 6-figure settlement from the police for their SWAT-style raid when nobody in the house had a history of violence. The use of those tactics on a woman who was 7 months pregnant with twins has horrific optics. It's readily apparent that everyone involved acquiesced to the desires of the MPAA, legal procedures be damned.

    If the US Government can go after him for piracy perpetrated by end users, could they also go after the likes of Larry Page for the same reason? (Not that they ever would, because duh)

    What would a 3.5% hit to the GDP of New Zealand do to them?

    1. Re:I feel conflicted by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So many people get killed from SWAT raids, couldn't this have been one of them? I mean, it's not like this blob is hard to miss.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:I feel conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The raid would have been done by NZ police. I don't think they are as trigger happy as US cops.

    3. Re:I feel conflicted by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They could have made an exception, for the greater good. The need of the many and all that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:Kim Dotcom by youngone · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't like Kim Dotcom at all, and as I am a New Zealander, I will be helping to pay him if he wins.
    I really, really hope he does win. The New Zealand Police rolled over like a pack of craven lickspittles when the US government called despite the case being terrible (as subsequent court rulings have shown).

    The other thing that smells bad about the whole thing is the way they went in guns drawn as if he was some kind of threat. The police here do not routinely carry firearms, and that's the way we like it. If a couple of detectives had walked up to his front door and knocked, they would have achieved the same end.

    I have often wondered why the video of the armed arrest was shown on the TV news the very night of the raid. Is it appropriate for the police to conduct trial by media?

  14. One thing this guarantees... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

    If he has anything close to a legitimate case, won't this guarantee his extradition to the U.S.?

    1. Re:One thing this guarantees... by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

      won't this guarantee his extradition to the U.S.?

      How?

    2. Re:One thing this guarantees... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      By pissing off the only one that stands between him and being thrown across the big pond?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:One thing this guarantees... by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

      Thats not how it works though. They have to do it legally. NZ and AU aren't the US yet, thank goodness.

    4. Re:One thing this guarantees... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's not how it should work, agreed. But if I was dependent on a country's interest in protecting their sovereignty against an overreaching international bully, I wouldn't try to give this country a reason to instead try hard to find some kind of loophole in its own law to get rid of me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:One thing this guarantees... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As far as I know Kimmie's ability to relocate right now is limited.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:One thing this guarantees... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      He won't be extradited since it sets a precedent that NZ doesn't protect it's citizens (and especially business leaders) from foreign law enforcement.

      America is setting the precedent that rights are something that your own citizens get and everyone else should just hang.

      Fortunately Europe is saying the opposite, that people have global citizenship and rights which they will protect. Therefore if you're locating data remotely you choose Europe, as you do for a number of other decisions involving protecting you from governments.

      This alone is pushing Europe ahead of the U.S. these days and is something they should have seriously thought about before reacting to 9/11 and ISIS but they didn't. So the U,S, has become a laughingstock as well as less competitive.

  15. Re:He is a massive shithead by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    And one of them could probably rip you in half if you had the balls to say so to his face.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  16. Re:Kim Dotcom by SpaceDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another Kiwi here in general agreement with you.

    On one hand Dotcom's last business plan was literally to steal revenue from websites like mine - the websites that feed my children. For that I wish a slow painful punishment on him.

    On the other hand I love my country and seeing our government and police roll over and behave like American thug cops was very disturbing.

    I honestly can't decide which is worse - Dotcom winning or the American bullies winning. It's a no-win situation from my perspective.

  17. Re:Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which buildings/vaults did Kim break in to? Do you have security footage? How many literal dollars, Kiwi or otherwise, did he make off with? Did one of those cool exploding dye packs color him neon pink?

    FOR THE ONE THOUSANDTH TIME: Copyright infringement =/= Theft.

  18. Re:Kim Dotcom by ABEND · · Score: 1

    Guns drawn and video leaked to TV news? Sounds like an FBI operation. Did they crash through his door at dawn too?

    --
    In all seriousness:
  19. Re: Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Break in and shoot the dogs, yeah real American style heros

  20. How much in NZ's fault? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    It was the USA government which seized Megaupload's assets and shut the company down overnight. This was clearly wrong, because it was done on the basis of legal proceedings similar to issuing a search warrant. Megaupload was utterly destroyed without having any opportunity to put its side of the argument to a court. (I'm not saying Megaupload could have successfully have defended itself, but justice demands it should have had the opportunity.)

    I can well believe that Dotcom has some case to make against NZ, but for the vast majority of that $6.8B claim I can't see how it can be laid at the door of the NZ government.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:How much in NZ's fault? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The point is that the US shut down Megaupload, with at best unclear legal justification, destroying DotCom's business. The business assets were in the US. The New Zealand government was (as far as I know) not a party to that. While the New Zealand government obviously mistreated him, it didn't destroy his business, which is largely what he's complaining about.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Re:He is a massive shithead by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 1

    He's a big shithead, but government is an even bigger septic tank full of little shitheads.

    I don't think many people got the rhyming slang.

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  22. Re: Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    toss flashbangs into the children's room.

  23. Re: Kim Dotcom by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

    It happened in the days the wider world foolishly had some respect for Mericanos.

  24. MEGACAR by cwns · · Score: 1

    Megacar

  25. pressing need? by Tom · · Score: 1

    Something happened that he needs publicity again, or just his narcissistic ego playing up?

    It's a bullshit lawsuit, of course, and will be laughed out of court, but look there, headline! Omg, can you possibly be more transparent in your actions?

    Why is /. promoting career criminals narcissism? He bought ads on here recently or what?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  26. Re:Kim Dotcom by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finally someone gets it.

    Just because a career criminal is in conflict with the US government he doesn't suddenly become a saint. When two bullies fight, the proper thing to do is not to root for one of them to win, but to hope they beat each other up badly. There can be two wrong sides to an argument.

    You don't need to decide which is worse - they are both terrible assholes.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  27. Re: Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Could you elaborate on what crimes he supposedly committed?

  28. Any Mega user around? by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

    I read precisely in his interview here that he had no more contact with the last version of Mega. I found this kind of curious, did some quick research, saw that the company was offering a quite good free package and opened an account which I have been using since then as secondary backup for a project which regularly generates an important amount of information. My experience so far has been quite good: simple Linux-/Windows-supported application, quickly and easily performing any sync (well... it has problems to properly recognise different disks on Linux, but the workaround is quite straightforward), no spam or any other kind of nagging, no privacy problems I am aware of, on-time alerts when getting out of free space (what happens every few weeks; as said, lots of info is being generated), etc.

    What I have found kind of curious when doing some research about this company is that there isn't much information about it; basically, being included in some cloud rankings/reviews and new and Kim Dotcom. Is anyone else using mega.nz services or has any opinion/information to share? Also does anyone know how that Kim-Dotcom-out-of-the-company happened? How did this new version start anyway? Was he just giving the name and a visible face to an otherwise-unrelated-to-him company or had an active involvement in its creation?

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:Any Mega user around? by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      For the before my morning coffee(s) myself "and new and Kim Dotcom" means "and news about Kim Dotcom". LOL.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  29. In GERMany we call him 'Kimme' * by xxxLCxxx · · Score: 1

    If you ever saw him and know about his past (as a rat), this makes perfect sense.
    ----
    * 'Kimme' - GERMan slang: "crack that divides your two cheeks"

  30. He SUED for loss of reputation? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Considering his only reputation was that he's a fraud, an inside trader and generally an asshole that would throw his partners under a bus for shits and giggles (and getting a get-out-of-jail card for it) numerous times, he should rather be PAYING anyone that manages to make him shed his reputation!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  31. Kimmie, here's a tale for you by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering that the New Zealand authorities are the ONLY thing that keeps you from getting thrown to the wolves the US are...

    A mouse was fleeing from the cat and came to a cow. The mouse begged "hide me!", which prompted the cow to drop a huge, smelly big cow pat onto the mouse, covering it fully. The cat came along and didn't see the mouse, the mouse on the other hand squeaked and squeaked, happy to be safe from the cat.

    The cat heard the squeaking and picked up the mouse on its tail, cleaned the mouse of the manure and ate it.

    Moral of the story: Not everyone that shits on you is your enemy. Not everyone that pulls you out of the shit is your friend. And when you're up past your neck in manure, shut the fuck up!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Re: Kim Dotcom by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Facilitating copyright infringement. Specifically, providing means to perform copyright infringement in a way that makes finding the infringers exceptionally difficult.

    Boils down to accessory to a crime.

    He took sufficient precautions to create a solid plausible deniability defense - solid enough that the case against him simply cannot be won. Everyone knows he's guilty, but he made damn sure there would be no solid proof of that - there's only a glaringly specific set of circumstances surrounding the inexplicable absence or invalidity of proofs. It's just like everyone *knows* Al Capone was a gangster, but to this day there are no legally valid proofs of that, despite nobody disputing that fact.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  33. Re: Kim Dotcom by locketine · · Score: 1

    So, is copyright infringement victimless? That seems to be what you're implying...

    --
    Think globally but act within local variable scope.
  34. Re:Kim Dotcom by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dotcom winning is better. Because than you can solve the problems that he caused. If the bully wins, you will be the bitch forever and for other things as well. Do you want to be a master over your own destiny or a slave to somebody elses?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  35. Re: Kim Dotcom by johanw · · Score: 1

    Extending copyright to ridiculous lengths and all the corporate repression that it results into is certainly not victimless.

  36. Re: Kim Dotcom by jbengt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like a civil case then, not a criminal one. OK, I know the US legislators have bowed down to their mickey mouse masters and made such things criminal, but they had been civil matters before.

  37. Re:Kim Dotcom by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I honestly can't decide which is worse - Dotcom winning or the American bullies winning. It's a no-win situation from my perspective.

    This isn't even in the same book. Kim should definitely win. The rule of law was abused and that should be corrected above all, even if a sleazebag like Kim walks away with lots of money. He'll lose it elsewhere soon enough or actually do something illegal, and then you can use rule of law as justified.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  38. Re:Kim Dotcom by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I honestly can't decide which is worse - Dotcom winning or the American bullies winning. It's a no-win situation from my perspective.

    How about: the Rule of Law winning? Documented norms that apply to everyone from the bum on the street corner to Bill Gates are a win for everyone.[1]

    In this particular case, it means that New Zealand should have followed its own laws, procedures and the treaties to which it is signatory without regard to political pressure brought by the United States. If those laws indicated that Dotcom should be arrested and extradited, well and good. If, as appears to be the case, New Zealand authorities violated their own laws, then Dotcom deserves compensation. I seriously doubt that he deserves 6.8B NZD. In an ideal outcome he ends up exactly where he would have without the illegal police action, which isn't "winning" it's "not losing".

    [1] Yeah, everyone knows that the bum on the street corner and Bill Gates do not get treated the same way, but that just means it's an aspirational goal toward which we should work, not something we should cynically laugh off. The further we are from it, the more seriously we need to take it and the more strongly we need to react when our appointed representatives fail to execute it.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  39. Re: Kim Dotcom by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Yes, of course, Big Al was just an innocent used furniture salesman, and he missed the date on his taxes.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  40. Kim made a good point regarding YouTube . . by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I think Kim Dotcom did have a point when he pointed out that youtube allows people to access tons of copyrighted material (you can listen to practically any song that you want). So why aren't google execs being arrested?

  41. The NZ tax payer won't want him here by Kryptonut · · Score: 1

    Think about it....those billions of dollars have to come from somewhere if the government has to pay up....and where does the government get their money from?

    Punish the majority for the actions of the few. For someone who wants to stay in New Zealand, effectively suing the citizens of the country you want to stay in for billions of dollars seems a bit counterproductive.

    1. Re:The NZ tax payer won't want him here by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The taxpayers of New Zealand elected the government that violated its own laws. How is this different from Bush getting us into an unnecessary war that cost trillions, destabilized the Middle East, and helped form ISIS? I didn't vote for the guy, but I still get to pay for what he did.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:The NZ tax payer won't want him here by Kryptonut · · Score: 1

      You're seriously making that comparison? :\

    3. Re:The NZ tax payer won't want him here by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Both are potentially expensive decisions that I disapproved of. Granted, they're different in size and numbers of people killed and international relations, but the taxpayer-pays part is the same.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  42. Re: Kim Dotcom by tattood · · Score: 1

    Facilitating copyright infringement. Specifically, providing means to perform copyright infringement in a way that makes finding the infringers exceptionally difficult.

    Citation needed.

    What trial convicted him of that crime? Oh... it's just your uninformed opinion then? Nothing to see then... moving along...

    Citation.

    This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime.

    The post you are replying to is talking about the crimes he was alleged to have done. Nobody is saying that he did them, but what he is charged with.

    --
    WTB [sig], PST!!!
  43. Re:Waaaahhh! Tom unhappy. Talk about Tom's interes by Tom · · Score: 1

    Well, GWH is a war criminal by any unbiased standard , so what exactly is the argument? That he wasn't brought to court? Well, that's due to a technicality called immunity, not because the case is weak.

    Kimble, on the other hand, provably is a criminal, and has been convicted before.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  44. Re:Kim Dotcom by Tom · · Score: 1

    We live in a society where we have decided upon something called the monopoly on violence.

    I don't agree with everything they do with that monopoly, but the fact is that our basic fundamental laws specifically establish the government as the only legitimate entity allowed to use violence to achieve its goals.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org