11 ms·

Kim Dotcom’s first TV interview: ‘I’m no piracy king’

177 points by NZ_Matt 15y ago

boyter 15y ago
Say what you will about him he does come across as knowledgeable in terms of the legalities and makes some very good points. His points about the outdated business models of the content companies are IMO totally true.
Devilboy 15y ago
So this NZ court decided to let him out on bail and give him access to his bank accounts for 'essential expenses'. I think that's pretty decent. Unlike what the US did with his entire company before even starting a trial.
Joakal 15y ago
There's precedent for anti-piracy extraditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths An Australian was extradited to USA despite having never been to USA or profited from piracy. Then was subsequently jailed, eventually finished sentence and became an illegal alien. Then deported back to Australia and banned from visiting USA. Edit: Corrected deport-back
- Jimmie 15y ago
  I think you meant to say he was deported back to Australia. It's weird that something like this sets a precedent in favor of extraditing people. Weird legal things like this sometimes prevent me from sleeping at 2 am. If you are unlucky you can just get completely screwed over by the system leaving your life in disarray. Almost as bad as a life changing illness.
  - TruthElixirX 15y ago
    Worse than an illness. Illnesses have no agency.
- xlevus 15y ago
  That's a precedent for the Australian courts. Not the New Zealand courts.
  - mark_up 15y ago
    They are both commonwealth countries, so cases in one are precedents in both.
- joering2 15y ago
  from Wiki link you provided: "The case therefore highlights the serious consequences for Australian internet users who are charged with pirating US copyright-protected material". Isn't really that hard to see we are living in a different world today than 10 years ago? I may be overstating, but in todays world you can setup a server in Cambodia and given enough traffic/brilliant idea/etc, make million of dollars off of US citizens, or citizens of any other nation laying on the antipodes. IF you have such an idea, it goes beyond being a web-designer, database engineer or smart businessman - you need to also be aware of the laws in the countries you're doing business with, especially if you bringing some serious income and your business idea is not the cleanest one under the sun. Heck, even Amazon itself is fighting US government on the tax issues. http://tnreport.com/blog/2011/07/18/many-states-grappling-with-amazon-tax-issue/ http://tnreport.com/blog/2011/07/18/many-states-grappling-wi...
  - Joakal 15y ago
    Uhh, this person didn't profit from piracy.
Mythbusters 15y ago
He is trying to hide behind DMCA but I think the FBI found out that he actually solicited pirated copies of music/movies which might land him in trouble. YouTube still is a treasure chest of pirated content but is doing well being protected by DMCA. That's because they don't go around asking people to upload pirated stuff to their site. It's another thing that people willingly do that ;)
- JoshCole 15y ago
  Do you have any links or evidence which backs up this claim? And why, even if he were to ask someone to upload a file to MegaUpload, would it be just for the site to be taken down without any sort of trial?
  - Mythbusters 15y ago
    Looks like you are too lazy to go to youtube and search. Here, let me find you some entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedZ2Vw7Fqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedZ2Vw7Fqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1xIub8wNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1xIub8wNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p3wUeraIDw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p3wUeraIDw And I am not justifying what the FBI did to him. I am saying that he might be liable if he asked people for pirated content and then hosted it for others to download.
    - JoshCole 15y ago
      I wasn't asking for links to youtube. I was asking for (a) links to Kim explicitly requesting people to upload copyrighted material in bad faith and (b) the point at which the law states that asking for things to be uploaded in bad faith means you should be jailed/have a site taken down. To the best of my knowledge many sites like Youtube actually go beyond the DMCA in trying to empower media companies to manage there content.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- dutchbrit 15y ago
  Mirror: http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview
sandieman 15y ago
Am I the only one that is finding him surprisingly convincing?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- zotz 15y ago
  I find him more convincing than an armed raid on a nonviolent man.
corin_ 15y ago
I really hope he wins this case, but there's an awful lot of naiveity going around. Comment I read on that video page ended "Leave the poor guy and his wife alone!" They're millionaires, and there's really no way to paint this as "poor Kim" - I can very well believe that based on his knowledge and his legal advice he expected to be safe legally, and was perhaps right, but the idea that he actually didn't know what MU was being used for, or that he cared about preventing it, is laughable. Look at his track record as a person, he's always prioritised himself (money, ego etc.) over legality.
- blasterford 15y ago
  "poor" is surely being used in the 'has been mistreated' way rather than 'has no money' way. Whether he knows what his service is used for or not is surely irrelevant though. The ISPs know that piracy goes on over the internet, so why aren't they equally liable? Computer manufacturers know that computers are used to download copyrighted content. So why not go after computer makers as well. They're enabling piracy!
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Yeah I didn't mean it that way - see my other reply for why I brought up his wealth.
- deanproxy 15y ago
  > Comment I read on that video page ended "Leave the poor guy and his wife alone!" They're millionaires, and there's really no way to paint this as "poor Kim" His douchebagginess aside; What does being a millionaire have anything to do with the situation? If someone is wronged for some reason people aren't allowed to have pity on them because they have a lot of money? That's kind of silly...
  - corin_ 15y ago
    The reason I mention his wealth is not to suggest that it means he deserves less than somebody with no money - what I mean is that he flirted with the wrong side of the law, and he did it for money not morals, I'd care a lot more about him if he was fighting for the law to change, not just fighting to keep his cars.
Thomaschaaf 15y ago
Can someone please provide a mirror? It's interessting that I looked at the commercial and then expected the clip to load in a timely fashion. And because I can not do it, I will probably not watch that clip to the end.
- NZ_Matt 15y ago
  I'm working on uploading a mirror to youtube right now. The website seems to be struggling with all the international traffic, 50k views in the three hours since it aired. -e Blocked on copyright grounds, the irony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxThMdJI65U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxThMdJI65U
- dutchbrit 15y ago
  Mirror: http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview
zyeljanee 15y ago
What I like most about Kim Dotcom is the way he stands out bravelly. He is realy a convincing person.
- brazzy 15y ago
  Con men tend to be convincing, it's kind of a job requirement. Seriously, read up on his past.
  - zyeljanee 15y ago
    There is time for everything in the life we are living today. Its a life issue and we all are given chances in life. Its not once a sinner always a sinner.......we learn by our past mistakes. Its his chance.............
dutchbrit 15y ago
Extremely slow - so I uploaded a mirror (downloadable or streamable): http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview (And, a sneak preview into one of my startup projects)
- rgower 15y ago
  Anyone see the irony here?
  - dutchbrit 15y ago
    I do :)
- alt_ 15y ago
  Instead of limiting streaming to Chrome and Firefox, use HTML5 video tags and/or just link directly to the byte-ranges enabled URL (http://serve2.com/uploads/a6312121e15caec74845b7ba5af23330d52d4ac0/cl_dotcomexclusive123_010312_700K.mp4 http://serve2.com/uploads/a6312121e15caec74845b7ba5af23330d5...) and you'll reach a lot more browsers and devices.
  - dutchbrit 15y ago
    Upvoted - Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated! Serve2 is essentially still in Pre Alpha & am aware of this issue. I also need to convert videos to ogg etc... (FFMPEG) - Serve2, when "launched" will work on desktop & mobile devices.
bbsabelli 15y ago
Sigh. If MegaUpload was still up, 3news could have used it to take the load off their servers. Just like the ad servers are doing.
quellhorst 15y ago
Some megaupload stats from the video: 1.5 terabits of data transfer and 800 downloads completed per second. If my math is correct: 493 petabytes data transfer per month with an average download size around 237 megabytes.
jamesu 15y ago
Just goes to show there is always more than 1 side to a story.
maeon3 15y ago
Meanwhile, there are 50 exes from AIG that got millions of dollars in bonuses after having stolen (removing the original type) of billions of dollars in cash money. AND taking down the global economy while they were at it. I think it's funny how Kim Dotcom's gets treated like a terrorist, but the AIG Execs get bonuses and a stern slap on the hand. Justice in this country is really bizarre. Some grand larceny is completely OK, and other "technical larceny" is punished with jailtime. I guess the moral of the story here is that It's not the Grand Larceny that makes it a deed worth punishing, it has to do with other qualities.
- noonespecial 15y ago
  Above street level, all justice is politics.
- joering2 15y ago
  > Justice in this country is really bizarre. Although I upvoted you, I don't get you. You seemed to be fully aware that the system in US was designed to collapse and the country is pretty much owned by offshore banking cartel with privetly owned banking system and Federal Reserve that has as much to do with "Federal" as "Federal Express", but yet you brag about "justice being bizarre". Kim, as I read somewhere "flew too close to the sun". He was too big, grew too fast and "wasn't the part of the family". You not choose to be a part of a family because you are wise and know how to make millions, as this example shows.
  - betterth 15y ago
    >and Federal Reserve that has as much to do with "Federal" as "Federal Express" This is a patent falsehood. Federal Express (now FedEx) is a private shipping company. The Federal Reserve System is a "private" bank created by an Act of Congress and managed by a Board of Governors, all of whom are placed by the President and confirmed by Senate. Additionally, the Chairman is chosen by the President from the Governors. The list of checks and balances between Government and our central bank is long, but it misses the biggest point: What the Congress creates, the Congress can take away. Congress could end the Fed tomorrow or dramatically change its oversight and decision making capability. To imply that the Federal Reserve is private in the same way as FedEx is about as disingenuous as you could possibly be. I'm going to have to assume here that you are simply woefully misinformed and not actively trying to spread disinformation...
tweak2live 15y ago
In my unprofessional legal view, it seems that what the copyright clique is really hoping to gain from this case is a precedent for making website owners responsible for ensuring that content uploaded to their site is copyright kosher. Currently, the copyright holder has to crawl the internet to make sure their copyright isn't being violated somewhere and if so - file a takedown order. This is very whack-a-mole and when it comes to cyberlockers - intractable, since many external links can resolve to the same file. Locker admins have to only remove the offending link to comply with a takedown request, as it is impossible (without knowing the internal code structure) to prove whether two links resolve to the same file or different copies thereof. The linkers can simply check periodically to make sure their links are current and update as necessary, which can be easily automated. The copyright holders cannot automate the discovery process (not without huge resources, anyway), while the copyright infringing parties can easily automate their side. This inherent unbalance creates a difficult policing problem that copyright holders (naturally) don't want to be responsible for. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If UGC site admins become legally compelled to monitor what they are hosting, the overhead will kill most ad-only revenue models. If not, copyright holders will have to hire some sort of copyright police (does it already exist? if not --> startup_idea_masterlist.add() ). Opinion question: what is the "ok/not ok" line for encouraging your users to use your (online) service for illegal activities (esp. copyright infringement)? Paying them to do it seems to be clearly "over the line", as far as US gov. is concerned. What about publicly announcing that you are not going to police their data?
- vidarh 15y ago
  It could potentially kill all UGC. There is no foolproof way to determine the copyright status of a given piece of content, unless it happens to be a piece that you can demonstrate was published long enough ago that copyright must have expired. E.g. if website owners are made liable for the copyright of uploaded content, a successful (illegal) attack on any site hosting copyrighted content would be for two parties secretly cooperating (secretly, because conspiring like this would almost certainly in itself be illegal): One party operates an offline (to prevent it from showing up in Google searches or otherwise being easy for the copyright owners to identify as possibly infringing) newsletter that publishes assorted essays that might for example include responses suitable for the forum of a specific UGC site. They might be written specifically for that purpose... The other party uploads a copy of said content to the site. The first party sues the website. You could do this without someone cooperating with you to write custom-written content, but it'd be easier to spot that something was off, and since you wouldn't hold the copyright on the content you wouldn't have standing to sue so you'd be dependent on making third parties pissed off. Since you'd be infringing on copyright in the first place, it might be easier to just use an accomplice. All it takes is someone who dislikes you strongly enough, and you're potentially out of business if you depend on UGC in this kind of scenario...
hengli 15y ago
Notice that when asked about the content provider's direct delete access he was very careful to say that he would remove any link they requested. I'm sorry, but there's only 1 reason why you would remove a link to an infringing file but not the actual file. Aiding piracy.
- Sumaso 15y ago
  "It’s like mail, it’s private, we cannot just go in there and police what these users are uploading." This has been mentioned before, but I'll say it again. If I upload Batman to my personal storage locker, and never share it with anyone else, and then a pirate uploads Batman and shares it with everyone, why should I lose my digital copy of Batman due to the actions of someone else? Maybe I don't have a thorough understanding of now Hashes work, but if we both rip the same movie with the same software, won't that file have the same hash?
  - rasur 15y ago
    It depends on the hashing method, above all. A cheap-and-nasty MD5 (for example) of the exact same film stored in different file formats will yield different hashes. A more sophisticated hashing methodology (for example something akin to the audio-fingerprinting tech used by Shazam) might yield a match.
    - Sumaso 15y ago
      Might doesn't sound like I have the right to remove someone's potentially pirated movie. Could have MegaUpload have done more to prevent pirated movies from being uploaded on their servers? Maybe, maybe not. Should they still be protected by the DCMA? IMHO, I think so.
      - rasur 15y ago
        I agree - "might" does not cut it for me either, but these are political games being played, not technical. Could MU have prevented "piracy" by blocking uploads of copyrighted material? Again, I'm inclined to agree with you and say "DMCA", there are too many privacy issues involved for sites to go jack-booting their way through everyones files (which again, Kim D-C mentioned in the video), especially when he's holding out an olive branch to the content companies by allowing them to delete millions of "illegal" files without any due-process.
rasur 15y ago
I think some of the points Kim makes are interesting: - He complies with the DMCA. - He provides direct 'delete' access to his servers for the content companies. - The content companies that claim to be losing billions, with direct access to his servers so far have failed to file any legal complaint with his lawyers. I'm sure as much as we want to dislike him for his previous flamboyant behaviour, he has some legitimate points and a legitimate company providing a legitimate service (and one that is similarly provided by other companies, some of which are household names). Call me cynical, but this smells of being such a monumental set-up that it makes the farm full of cows just down the road from me seem like a breath of fresh air.
- brazzy 15y ago
  - He complies with the DMCA. - He provides direct 'delete' access to his servers for the content companies. The way I heard it Megaupload was basically designed to perfunctorily comply with the DMCA while actually not deleting content and keeping it accessible.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    The way any sane company would. Imagine you host a file locker service, and there are ten copies of a given music video on your service, which due to deduping (also what any sane enterprise would do), all point to the same physical data. You recieve a DMCA for one link, and do your duty and take it down. You do not take down the other 9 links, because you are in no position to know if the other 9 are infringing are not.
    - randallsquared 15y ago
      which due to deduping (also what any sane enterprise would do) Well, now. It seems possible to me that, in the current legal environment, copies are infringing or not, rather than links. If that's the case, then deduping is either destroying legal copies or conducting infringement, depending on exactly what operations were performed. This seems sane as long as you believe bits have color, I suppose.
jakeonthemove 15y ago
Interesting situation, indeed. Let's not forget he has yet to be found guilty for any of the charges. And if he's tried and found not guilty, who's going to repay all the time and money lost because his site was down? It's like the FBI came in and demolished his store to take away the bricks as evidence - if he's found not guilty, I doubt they're going to rebuild it for him. They just needed someone to make an example of - there are dozens of other sharing sites out there (hell, many of them even have "warez" in their name), and yet they chose Megaupload, one of the biggest, with a brazen in-your-face owner (last time I checked, that wasn't a crime). It seems to have worked, though - Filesonic disabled sharing, for example, and other sites must've done something similar...
- Hexx 15y ago
  Not to mention future damages. I think even if Megaupload is brought back up the chances of it reclaiming it's past glory anytime soon will take quite a while. Who's going to trust the site to store their files now?
  - lmm 15y ago
    Would a non-Megaupload site be any safer? The message I take away from this is to never host anything in the US, and if possible live in a country without diplomatic relations with the US.
- joering2 15y ago
  He will not be found not guilty. At least not 100%. Justice system will have to find something, anything, not to entirely discredit itself.
- arg01 15y ago
  It hasn't really worked though, when it comes to reducing piracy. It appears to have just shook up who the players are and where they are located. http://www.itworld.com/security/247998/megaupload-takedown-didnt-slow-pirate-downloads-just-moved-them-offshore http://www.itworld.com/security/247998/megaupload-takedown-d...
aremie 15y ago
The Kevin Mitnick of piracy. What a shame.
realschool 15y ago
Seeing all those videos that came out when he was first arrested gave the impression that he was a 'bad' person who deserved to be in jail. Hearing him speak gives a completely different impression, obviously he'd have to be smart to have the success he has, but this video goes to show he's articulate, convincing and well versed in the industry that he is a part of. Clearly the early propaganda served a purposes, but this video shows reality.
- brazzy 15y ago
  Since when does being articulate, convincing and well versed in the industry make you a "good" person? The guy has several previous convictions for fraud, insider trading and handling of stolen goods.
  - realschool 15y ago
    I'm not saying that he is a good person, just that he's not so bad as all the information that came out made him seem.
funkah 15y ago
Kind of annoying how this guy is becoming a media darling.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  The guy who had his business destroyed before ever going to court? Yeah, what a jackass that guy is.
stevenbrianhall 15y ago
This is incredible PR, in my opinion. Prior to this interview, all I had known of Kim Dotcom were from photos and videos of him in private jets, on the beach, in expensive cars, etc. He seemed like a playboy who was above the law. In this interview he strikes me as highly intelligent, metered, and well versed in the various copyright laws. It seems like he has managed to operate his business from within a legal loophole, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out in court.
HalibetLector 15y ago
I'm confused - A large part of the discussion here is around the legality of deduping and "infringing" files. I was under the impression that files themselves don't violate copyright - people do. As a result, there will never be a way to accurately determine who can download a particular file. Or am I missing something? If I own a copy of the DVD and want to download a dvdrip, am I commiting copyright infringement? Is the file, in and of itself, an illegal file? or is the act of downloading said file illegal? (and to short circuit the 'you should rip your dvd yourself' discussion, it's quicker to download and the end result is the same)
- clark-kent 15y ago
  Downloading it or distributing the file is considered illegal activity. It doesn't matter if you own legit copies of the same file.
  - tripa 15y ago
    Sources, details or IANAL please?
  - vidarh 15y ago
    Depends on the jurisdiction, especially whether or not they have provisions for backups or other personal use.
forrestthewoods 15y ago
I don't understand the HN community stance on this. MegaUpload was blatantly profiteering off of copyright infringing materials. DMCA take down notices affected only a single link to a file and not the file itself. Premium users could spend money to "clone" files by generating a new link without having to upload a single byte. MegaUpload paid users based on the number of times their file was downloaded. It is claimed that MegaUpload accounted for four percent of all internet traffic. They did all this to the tune of several hundred million dollars in profit. There are numerous websites that are 100% dedicated to the streaming of copyrighted material (TV shows and movies). They stream content from MegaUpload directly to your browser with no download needed. MegaUpload blatantly and clearly did not care about hosting and serving copyright infringing material from their servers. It does not require an IT genius to detect that the file Game.Of.Thrones.S1.E01 which has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times may possibly be copyright infringing material. Someone who actually cared would look at which websites are streaming content to MILLIONS of users. If that website is 100% solely dedicated to serving copyright infringing material then you should probably take down the files they are streaming. The wiki DMCA Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act states "To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." IANAL but it was pretty damn apparent that MegaUpload was being used for infringing activity to me. I seriously don't understand why this community supports Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload. I really don't.
- rewind 15y ago
  Cognitive dissonance. Deep down, people know what they're doing is wrong, but don't want to admit it. The same reasoning that allows them to perceive that they're not doing anything wrong has to be applied to guys like Kim Dotcom; otherwise, they have to admit they're doing something wrong.
  - betterth 15y ago
    Yes, we should remain subservient to an abusive, quickly antiquating industry and it's politically subversive methods. Or, we can accept that while piracy is wrong, it's not the boogeyman that these luddites have made it out to be, and it's certainly not worth the vicious punishments doled out by Governments. Do the creators of these wonderful cultural works deserve to be paid? Absolutely. And you'll notice that the same pirates are more than willing to crowdfund through Kickstater or directly a la Louis CK. But as long as the organizations controlling the legal rights to these cultural works continue to actively subvert our democracy, you won't find sympathy from me or many others. I consider it civil disobedience. YMMV.

177 points by NZ_Matt 15y ago

Say what you will about him he does come across as knowledgeable in terms of the legalities and makes some very good points. His points about the outdated business models of the content companies are IMO totally true.

Devilboy 15y ago

So this NZ court decided to let him out on bail and give him access to his bank accounts for 'essential expenses'. I think that's pretty decent. Unlike what the US did with his entire company before even starting a trial.

Joakal 15y ago

There's precedent for anti-piracy extraditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths An Australian was extradited to USA despite having never been to USA or profited from piracy. Then was subsequently jailed, eventually finished sentence and became an illegal alien. Then deported back to Australia and banned from visiting USA. Edit: Corrected deport-back

Jimmie 15y ago
I think you meant to say he was deported back to Australia. It's weird that something like this sets a precedent in favor of extraditing people. Weird legal things like this sometimes prevent me from sleeping at 2 am. If you are unlucky you can just get completely screwed over by the system leaving your life in disarray. Almost as bad as a life changing illness.
- TruthElixirX 15y ago
  Worse than an illness. Illnesses have no agency.
xlevus 15y ago
That's a precedent for the Australian courts. Not the New Zealand courts.
- mark_up 15y ago
  They are both commonwealth countries, so cases in one are precedents in both.
joering2 15y ago
from Wiki link you provided: "The case therefore highlights the serious consequences for Australian internet users who are charged with pirating US copyright-protected material". Isn't really that hard to see we are living in a different world today than 10 years ago? I may be overstating, but in todays world you can setup a server in Cambodia and given enough traffic/brilliant idea/etc, make million of dollars off of US citizens, or citizens of any other nation laying on the antipodes. IF you have such an idea, it goes beyond being a web-designer, database engineer or smart businessman - you need to also be aware of the laws in the countries you're doing business with, especially if you bringing some serious income and your business idea is not the cleanest one under the sun. Heck, even Amazon itself is fighting US government on the tax issues. http://tnreport.com/blog/2011/07/18/many-states-grappling-with-amazon-tax-issue/ http://tnreport.com/blog/2011/07/18/many-states-grappling-wi...
- Joakal 15y ago
  Uhh, this person didn't profit from piracy.

Mythbusters 15y ago

He is trying to hide behind DMCA but I think the FBI found out that he actually solicited pirated copies of music/movies which might land him in trouble. YouTube still is a treasure chest of pirated content but is doing well being protected by DMCA. That's because they don't go around asking people to upload pirated stuff to their site. It's another thing that people willingly do that ;)

JoshCole 15y ago
Do you have any links or evidence which backs up this claim? And why, even if he were to ask someone to upload a file to MegaUpload, would it be just for the site to be taken down without any sort of trial?
- Mythbusters 15y ago
  Looks like you are too lazy to go to youtube and search. Here, let me find you some entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedZ2Vw7Fqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedZ2Vw7Fqk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1xIub8wNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1xIub8wNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p3wUeraIDw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p3wUeraIDw And I am not justifying what the FBI did to him. I am saying that he might be liable if he asked people for pirated content and then hosted it for others to download.
  - JoshCole 15y ago
    I wasn't asking for links to youtube. I was asking for (a) links to Kim explicitly requesting people to upload copyrighted material in bad faith and (b) the point at which the law states that asking for things to be uploaded in bad faith means you should be jailed/have a site taken down. To the best of my knowledge many sites like Youtube actually go beyond the DMCA in trying to empower media companies to manage there content.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dutchbrit 15y ago
Mirror: http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview

sandieman 15y ago

Am I the only one that is finding him surprisingly convincing?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
zotz 15y ago
I find him more convincing than an armed raid on a nonviolent man.

corin_ 15y ago

I really hope he wins this case, but there's an awful lot of naiveity going around. Comment I read on that video page ended "Leave the poor guy and his wife alone!" They're millionaires, and there's really no way to paint this as "poor Kim" - I can very well believe that based on his knowledge and his legal advice he expected to be safe legally, and was perhaps right, but the idea that he actually didn't know what MU was being used for, or that he cared about preventing it, is laughable. Look at his track record as a person, he's always prioritised himself (money, ego etc.) over legality.

blasterford 15y ago
"poor" is surely being used in the 'has been mistreated' way rather than 'has no money' way. Whether he knows what his service is used for or not is surely irrelevant though. The ISPs know that piracy goes on over the internet, so why aren't they equally liable? Computer manufacturers know that computers are used to download copyrighted content. So why not go after computer makers as well. They're enabling piracy!
- corin_ 15y ago
  Yeah I didn't mean it that way - see my other reply for why I brought up his wealth.
deanproxy 15y ago
> Comment I read on that video page ended "Leave the poor guy and his wife alone!" They're millionaires, and there's really no way to paint this as "poor Kim" His douchebagginess aside; What does being a millionaire have anything to do with the situation? If someone is wronged for some reason people aren't allowed to have pity on them because they have a lot of money? That's kind of silly...
- corin_ 15y ago
  The reason I mention his wealth is not to suggest that it means he deserves less than somebody with no money - what I mean is that he flirted with the wrong side of the law, and he did it for money not morals, I'd care a lot more about him if he was fighting for the law to change, not just fighting to keep his cars.

Thomaschaaf 15y ago

Can someone please provide a mirror? It's interessting that I looked at the commercial and then expected the clip to load in a timely fashion. And because I can not do it, I will probably not watch that clip to the end.

NZ_Matt 15y ago
I'm working on uploading a mirror to youtube right now. The website seems to be struggling with all the international traffic, 50k views in the three hours since it aired. -e Blocked on copyright grounds, the irony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxThMdJI65U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxThMdJI65U
dutchbrit 15y ago
Mirror: http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview

zyeljanee 15y ago

What I like most about Kim Dotcom is the way he stands out bravelly. He is realy a convincing person.

brazzy 15y ago
Con men tend to be convincing, it's kind of a job requirement. Seriously, read up on his past.
- zyeljanee 15y ago
  There is time for everything in the life we are living today. Its a life issue and we all are given chances in life. Its not once a sinner always a sinner.......we learn by our past mistakes. Its his chance.............

dutchbrit 15y ago

Extremely slow - so I uploaded a mirror (downloadable or streamable): http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview http://serve2.com/file/kim-interview (And, a sneak preview into one of my startup projects)

rgower 15y ago
Anyone see the irony here?
- dutchbrit 15y ago
  I do :)
alt_ 15y ago
Instead of limiting streaming to Chrome and Firefox, use HTML5 video tags and/or just link directly to the byte-ranges enabled URL (http://serve2.com/uploads/a6312121e15caec74845b7ba5af23330d52d4ac0/cl_dotcomexclusive123_010312_700K.mp4 http://serve2.com/uploads/a6312121e15caec74845b7ba5af23330d5...) and you'll reach a lot more browsers and devices.
- dutchbrit 15y ago
  Upvoted - Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated! Serve2 is essentially still in Pre Alpha & am aware of this issue. I also need to convert videos to ogg etc... (FFMPEG) - Serve2, when "launched" will work on desktop & mobile devices.

bbsabelli 15y ago

Sigh. If MegaUpload was still up, 3news could have used it to take the load off their servers. Just like the ad servers are doing.

quellhorst 15y ago

Some megaupload stats from the video: 1.5 terabits of data transfer and 800 downloads completed per second. If my math is correct: 493 petabytes data transfer per month with an average download size around 237 megabytes.

jamesu 15y ago

Just goes to show there is always more than 1 side to a story.

maeon3 15y ago

Meanwhile, there are 50 exes from AIG that got millions of dollars in bonuses after having stolen (removing the original type) of billions of dollars in cash money. AND taking down the global economy while they were at it. I think it's funny how Kim Dotcom's gets treated like a terrorist, but the AIG Execs get bonuses and a stern slap on the hand. Justice in this country is really bizarre. Some grand larceny is completely OK, and other "technical larceny" is punished with jailtime. I guess the moral of the story here is that It's not the Grand Larceny that makes it a deed worth punishing, it has to do with other qualities.

noonespecial 15y ago
Above street level, all justice is politics.
joering2 15y ago
> Justice in this country is really bizarre. Although I upvoted you, I don't get you. You seemed to be fully aware that the system in US was designed to collapse and the country is pretty much owned by offshore banking cartel with privetly owned banking system and Federal Reserve that has as much to do with "Federal" as "Federal Express", but yet you brag about "justice being bizarre". Kim, as I read somewhere "flew too close to the sun". He was too big, grew too fast and "wasn't the part of the family". You not choose to be a part of a family because you are wise and know how to make millions, as this example shows.
- betterth 15y ago
  >and Federal Reserve that has as much to do with "Federal" as "Federal Express" This is a patent falsehood. Federal Express (now FedEx) is a private shipping company. The Federal Reserve System is a "private" bank created by an Act of Congress and managed by a Board of Governors, all of whom are placed by the President and confirmed by Senate. Additionally, the Chairman is chosen by the President from the Governors. The list of checks and balances between Government and our central bank is long, but it misses the biggest point: What the Congress creates, the Congress can take away. Congress could end the Fed tomorrow or dramatically change its oversight and decision making capability. To imply that the Federal Reserve is private in the same way as FedEx is about as disingenuous as you could possibly be. I'm going to have to assume here that you are simply woefully misinformed and not actively trying to spread disinformation...

tweak2live 15y ago

In my unprofessional legal view, it seems that what the copyright clique is really hoping to gain from this case is a precedent for making website owners responsible for ensuring that content uploaded to their site is copyright kosher. Currently, the copyright holder has to crawl the internet to make sure their copyright isn't being violated somewhere and if so - file a takedown order. This is very whack-a-mole and when it comes to cyberlockers - intractable, since many external links can resolve to the same file. Locker admins have to only remove the offending link to comply with a takedown request, as it is impossible (without knowing the internal code structure) to prove whether two links resolve to the same file or different copies thereof. The linkers can simply check periodically to make sure their links are current and update as necessary, which can be easily automated. The copyright holders cannot automate the discovery process (not without huge resources, anyway), while the copyright infringing parties can easily automate their side. This inherent unbalance creates a difficult policing problem that copyright holders (naturally) don't want to be responsible for. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If UGC site admins become legally compelled to monitor what they are hosting, the overhead will kill most ad-only revenue models. If not, copyright holders will have to hire some sort of copyright police (does it already exist? if not --> startup_idea_masterlist.add() ). Opinion question: what is the "ok/not ok" line for encouraging your users to use your (online) service for illegal activities (esp. copyright infringement)? Paying them to do it seems to be clearly "over the line", as far as US gov. is concerned. What about publicly announcing that you are not going to police their data?

vidarh 15y ago
It could potentially kill all UGC. There is no foolproof way to determine the copyright status of a given piece of content, unless it happens to be a piece that you can demonstrate was published long enough ago that copyright must have expired. E.g. if website owners are made liable for the copyright of uploaded content, a successful (illegal) attack on any site hosting copyrighted content would be for two parties secretly cooperating (secretly, because conspiring like this would almost certainly in itself be illegal): One party operates an offline (to prevent it from showing up in Google searches or otherwise being easy for the copyright owners to identify as possibly infringing) newsletter that publishes assorted essays that might for example include responses suitable for the forum of a specific UGC site. They might be written specifically for that purpose... The other party uploads a copy of said content to the site. The first party sues the website. You could do this without someone cooperating with you to write custom-written content, but it'd be easier to spot that something was off, and since you wouldn't hold the copyright on the content you wouldn't have standing to sue so you'd be dependent on making third parties pissed off. Since you'd be infringing on copyright in the first place, it might be easier to just use an accomplice. All it takes is someone who dislikes you strongly enough, and you're potentially out of business if you depend on UGC in this kind of scenario...

hengli 15y ago

Notice that when asked about the content provider's direct delete access he was very careful to say that he would remove any link they requested. I'm sorry, but there's only 1 reason why you would remove a link to an infringing file but not the actual file. Aiding piracy.

Sumaso 15y ago
"It’s like mail, it’s private, we cannot just go in there and police what these users are uploading." This has been mentioned before, but I'll say it again. If I upload Batman to my personal storage locker, and never share it with anyone else, and then a pirate uploads Batman and shares it with everyone, why should I lose my digital copy of Batman due to the actions of someone else? Maybe I don't have a thorough understanding of now Hashes work, but if we both rip the same movie with the same software, won't that file have the same hash?
- rasur 15y ago
  It depends on the hashing method, above all. A cheap-and-nasty MD5 (for example) of the exact same film stored in different file formats will yield different hashes. A more sophisticated hashing methodology (for example something akin to the audio-fingerprinting tech used by Shazam) might yield a match.
  - Sumaso 15y ago
    Might doesn't sound like I have the right to remove someone's potentially pirated movie. Could have MegaUpload have done more to prevent pirated movies from being uploaded on their servers? Maybe, maybe not. Should they still be protected by the DCMA? IMHO, I think so.
    - rasur 15y ago
      I agree - "might" does not cut it for me either, but these are political games being played, not technical. Could MU have prevented "piracy" by blocking uploads of copyrighted material? Again, I'm inclined to agree with you and say "DMCA", there are too many privacy issues involved for sites to go jack-booting their way through everyones files (which again, Kim D-C mentioned in the video), especially when he's holding out an olive branch to the content companies by allowing them to delete millions of "illegal" files without any due-process.

rasur 15y ago

I think some of the points Kim makes are interesting: - He complies with the DMCA. - He provides direct 'delete' access to his servers for the content companies. - The content companies that claim to be losing billions, with direct access to his servers so far have failed to file any legal complaint with his lawyers. I'm sure as much as we want to dislike him for his previous flamboyant behaviour, he has some legitimate points and a legitimate company providing a legitimate service (and one that is similarly provided by other companies, some of which are household names). Call me cynical, but this smells of being such a monumental set-up that it makes the farm full of cows just down the road from me seem like a breath of fresh air.

brazzy 15y ago
- He complies with the DMCA. - He provides direct 'delete' access to his servers for the content companies. The way I heard it Megaupload was basically designed to perfunctorily comply with the DMCA while actually not deleting content and keeping it accessible.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  The way any sane company would. Imagine you host a file locker service, and there are ten copies of a given music video on your service, which due to deduping (also what any sane enterprise would do), all point to the same physical data. You recieve a DMCA for one link, and do your duty and take it down. You do not take down the other 9 links, because you are in no position to know if the other 9 are infringing are not.
  - randallsquared 15y ago
    which due to deduping (also what any sane enterprise would do) Well, now. It seems possible to me that, in the current legal environment, copies are infringing or not, rather than links. If that's the case, then deduping is either destroying legal copies or conducting infringement, depending on exactly what operations were performed. This seems sane as long as you believe bits have color, I suppose.

jakeonthemove 15y ago

Interesting situation, indeed. Let's not forget he has yet to be found guilty for any of the charges. And if he's tried and found not guilty, who's going to repay all the time and money lost because his site was down? It's like the FBI came in and demolished his store to take away the bricks as evidence - if he's found not guilty, I doubt they're going to rebuild it for him. They just needed someone to make an example of - there are dozens of other sharing sites out there (hell, many of them even have "warez" in their name), and yet they chose Megaupload, one of the biggest, with a brazen in-your-face owner (last time I checked, that wasn't a crime). It seems to have worked, though - Filesonic disabled sharing, for example, and other sites must've done something similar...

Hexx 15y ago
Not to mention future damages. I think even if Megaupload is brought back up the chances of it reclaiming it's past glory anytime soon will take quite a while. Who's going to trust the site to store their files now?
- lmm 15y ago
  Would a non-Megaupload site be any safer? The message I take away from this is to never host anything in the US, and if possible live in a country without diplomatic relations with the US.
joering2 15y ago
He will not be found not guilty. At least not 100%. Justice system will have to find something, anything, not to entirely discredit itself.
arg01 15y ago
It hasn't really worked though, when it comes to reducing piracy. It appears to have just shook up who the players are and where they are located. http://www.itworld.com/security/247998/megaupload-takedown-didnt-slow-pirate-downloads-just-moved-them-offshore http://www.itworld.com/security/247998/megaupload-takedown-d...

aremie 15y ago

The Kevin Mitnick of piracy. What a shame.

realschool 15y ago

Seeing all those videos that came out when he was first arrested gave the impression that he was a 'bad' person who deserved to be in jail. Hearing him speak gives a completely different impression, obviously he'd have to be smart to have the success he has, but this video goes to show he's articulate, convincing and well versed in the industry that he is a part of. Clearly the early propaganda served a purposes, but this video shows reality.

brazzy 15y ago
Since when does being articulate, convincing and well versed in the industry make you a "good" person? The guy has several previous convictions for fraud, insider trading and handling of stolen goods.
- realschool 15y ago
  I'm not saying that he is a good person, just that he's not so bad as all the information that came out made him seem.

funkah 15y ago

Kind of annoying how this guy is becoming a media darling.

smokeyj 15y ago
The guy who had his business destroyed before ever going to court? Yeah, what a jackass that guy is.

stevenbrianhall 15y ago

This is incredible PR, in my opinion. Prior to this interview, all I had known of Kim Dotcom were from photos and videos of him in private jets, on the beach, in expensive cars, etc. He seemed like a playboy who was above the law. In this interview he strikes me as highly intelligent, metered, and well versed in the various copyright laws. It seems like he has managed to operate his business from within a legal loophole, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out in court.

HalibetLector 15y ago

I'm confused - A large part of the discussion here is around the legality of deduping and "infringing" files. I was under the impression that files themselves don't violate copyright - people do. As a result, there will never be a way to accurately determine who can download a particular file. Or am I missing something? If I own a copy of the DVD and want to download a dvdrip, am I commiting copyright infringement? Is the file, in and of itself, an illegal file? or is the act of downloading said file illegal? (and to short circuit the 'you should rip your dvd yourself' discussion, it's quicker to download and the end result is the same)

clark-kent 15y ago
Downloading it or distributing the file is considered illegal activity. It doesn't matter if you own legit copies of the same file.
- tripa 15y ago
  Sources, details or IANAL please?
- vidarh 15y ago
  Depends on the jurisdiction, especially whether or not they have provisions for backups or other personal use.

forrestthewoods 15y ago

I don't understand the HN community stance on this. MegaUpload was blatantly profiteering off of copyright infringing materials. DMCA take down notices affected only a single link to a file and not the file itself. Premium users could spend money to "clone" files by generating a new link without having to upload a single byte. MegaUpload paid users based on the number of times their file was downloaded. It is claimed that MegaUpload accounted for four percent of all internet traffic. They did all this to the tune of several hundred million dollars in profit. There are numerous websites that are 100% dedicated to the streaming of copyrighted material (TV shows and movies). They stream content from MegaUpload directly to your browser with no download needed. MegaUpload blatantly and clearly did not care about hosting and serving copyright infringing material from their servers. It does not require an IT genius to detect that the file Game.Of.Thrones.S1.E01 which has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times may possibly be copyright infringing material. Someone who actually cared would look at which websites are streaming content to MILLIONS of users. If that website is 100% solely dedicated to serving copyright infringing material then you should probably take down the files they are streaming. The wiki DMCA Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act states "To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." IANAL but it was pretty damn apparent that MegaUpload was being used for infringing activity to me. I seriously don't understand why this community supports Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload. I really don't.

rewind 15y ago
Cognitive dissonance. Deep down, people know what they're doing is wrong, but don't want to admit it. The same reasoning that allows them to perceive that they're not doing anything wrong has to be applied to guys like Kim Dotcom; otherwise, they have to admit they're doing something wrong.
- betterth 15y ago
  Yes, we should remain subservient to an abusive, quickly antiquating industry and it's politically subversive methods. Or, we can accept that while piracy is wrong, it's not the boogeyman that these luddites have made it out to be, and it's certainly not worth the vicious punishments doled out by Governments. Do the creators of these wonderful cultural works deserve to be paid? Absolutely. And you'll notice that the same pirates are more than willing to crowdfund through Kickstater or directly a la Louis CK. But as long as the organizations controlling the legal rights to these cultural works continue to actively subvert our democracy, you won't find sympathy from me or many others. I consider it civil disobedience. YMMV.