5 ms·

I'm not sure. Such a ruling like this one would give Mr. Dotcom "do not touch this guy" status (if he wins, expect him coming back from ashes and starting this

I'm not sure. Such a ruling like this one would give Mr. Dotcom "do not touch this guy" status (if he wins, expect him coming back from ashes and starting this or another online business, whether on the edge of legality, or not, still making big bucks), that means next time a prosecutor will try to go after him whether due to RIAA/political pressures or not, they will be highly discouraged by the outcome of this case. Such a ruling would also encourage others to do things on the edge of the law because others got away with it. So no, by any means they wanted to put Mr. Dotcom behind bars and keep him there while thousands of his hard drives rot and fall apart.

adventureful 14y ago
I wouldn't assume the authorities in question had any of this well mapped out (their preparation indicates they didn't), nor that they're all that interested in this case (it's not that high on the todo list). If this were strictly a matter of stopping Dotcom, and it were that critically important, they'd simply kill him if they couldn't beat him in court (heart attack, he is after all morbidly obese). We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all sorts of reasons (war on drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they could just internally label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama signs off on an assassination order, and goodnight. I believe destroying MU was thrown together mostly haphazardly out of desperation. This is an annoying sideshow for an organization like the FBI. They're doing the bidding of a higher up master, that is doing the bidding of the money in Hollywood.
- legutierr 14y ago
  "We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all sorts of reasons (war on drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they could just internally label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama signs off on an assassination order, and goodnight." Seriously, what are you suggesting? That the US assassinates prominent citizens of allied nations inside allied nations for no other reason but to support the business interests of large multinational corporations? Are we really seen to be such a mafia state as this, now? Honestly, when has this ever happened?
  - Joakal 14y ago
    Since 1950s
    - deelowe 14y ago
      * citation needed
      - Joakal 14y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_U.S._foreign_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_U.S._foreign_poli...
        deelowe 14y ago
        I was specifically referring to this: assassinates prominent citizens of allied nations inside allied nations There's many criticisms that can be found for nearly all superpower nations, but I'm not aware of the US having a history of "assassinating citizens". Unless collateral damage is now the same as an "assassination."
  - sp332 14y ago
    We've funded coups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras and instigated armies against their own people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre in order to support business interests.
    - refurb 14y ago
      I'm sure these people we "instigated" had no personal motivations in matter at all.
      - sp332 14y ago
        You really think they'd turn their guns on their own citizens just to break up a union dispute with an American corporation?
- joering2 14y ago
  adventureful, I agree with your point of view on approved by government killing of civilians for business gains. BUT it usually happens in the cases where you cross the multi-billion dollar schemes that they run, such as drug trafficking (FBI), children kidnapping (Haliburton) and of course so called War on Terror where in some places like US we spent trillions of dollars to fight against Al-Quada, in some others like Lybia we spent trillions of dollars to fight together with Al-Quada. But again, those are trillion dollars per year pure income streams that feed multiple government agencies, both white and blac-type ops. I think someone like Mr. Dotcom and his $115MM stolen is much too little for someone in government to pull the trigger.
  - adventureful 14y ago
    And that's why he isn't dead. It wasn't that big of a deal for them, they threw together a hasty plan to wreck Megaupload, and wreck it they did. I doubt they counted on much blow back or much of a fight afterward either, which was part of their miscalculation.
stfu 14y ago
I personally think this is a very good thing and anyone pushing the status quo and conventional thinking a step further is in my view a worthy cause. Sure, there are going to be backslashes, but I honestly believe that society is moving forward not by rules, but by those who dare to break them.
anamax 14y ago
> Such a ruling like this one would give Mr. Dotcom "do not touch this guy" Like John Gotti? Beating a rap doesn't necessarily discourage police/prosecutors. It often motivates them.

adventureful 14y ago

I wouldn't assume the authorities in question had any of this well mapped out (their preparation indicates they didn't), nor that they're all that interested in this case (it's not that high on the todo list). If this were strictly a matter of stopping Dotcom, and it were that critically important, they'd simply kill him if they couldn't beat him in court (heart attack, he is after all morbidly obese). We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all sorts of reasons (war on drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they could just internally label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama signs off on an assassination order, and goodnight. I believe destroying MU was thrown together mostly haphazardly out of desperation. This is an annoying sideshow for an organization like the FBI. They're doing the bidding of a higher up master, that is doing the bidding of the money in Hollywood.

legutierr 14y ago
"We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all sorts of reasons (war on drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they could just internally label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama signs off on an assassination order, and goodnight." Seriously, what are you suggesting? That the US assassinates prominent citizens of allied nations inside allied nations for no other reason but to support the business interests of large multinational corporations? Are we really seen to be such a mafia state as this, now? Honestly, when has this ever happened?
- Joakal 14y ago
  Since 1950s
  - deelowe 14y ago
    * citation needed
    - Joakal 14y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_U.S._foreign_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_U.S._foreign_poli...
      - deelowe 14y ago
        I was specifically referring to this: assassinates prominent citizens of allied nations inside allied nations There's many criticisms that can be found for nearly all superpower nations, but I'm not aware of the US having a history of "assassinating citizens". Unless collateral damage is now the same as an "assassination."
- sp332 14y ago
  We've funded coups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras and instigated armies against their own people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre in order to support business interests.
  - refurb 14y ago
    I'm sure these people we "instigated" had no personal motivations in matter at all.
    - sp332 14y ago
      You really think they'd turn their guns on their own citizens just to break up a union dispute with an American corporation?
joering2 14y ago
adventureful, I agree with your point of view on approved by government killing of civilians for business gains. BUT it usually happens in the cases where you cross the multi-billion dollar schemes that they run, such as drug trafficking (FBI), children kidnapping (Haliburton) and of course so called War on Terror where in some places like US we spent trillions of dollars to fight against Al-Quada, in some others like Lybia we spent trillions of dollars to fight together with Al-Quada. But again, those are trillion dollars per year pure income streams that feed multiple government agencies, both white and blac-type ops. I think someone like Mr. Dotcom and his $115MM stolen is much too little for someone in government to pull the trigger.
- adventureful 14y ago
  And that's why he isn't dead. It wasn't that big of a deal for them, they threw together a hasty plan to wreck Megaupload, and wreck it they did. I doubt they counted on much blow back or much of a fight afterward either, which was part of their miscalculation.

stfu 14y ago

I personally think this is a very good thing and anyone pushing the status quo and conventional thinking a step further is in my view a worthy cause. Sure, there are going to be backslashes, but I honestly believe that society is moving forward not by rules, but by those who dare to break them.

anamax 14y ago

> Such a ruling like this one would give Mr. Dotcom "do not touch this guy" Like John Gotti? Beating a rap doesn't necessarily discourage police/prosecutors. It often motivates them.