6 ms·

Look at his options: 1. Get bled until nobody will offer legal services to him because they know he can't pay. Get extradited with a public defendant (if he's

Look at his options: 1. Get bled until nobody will offer legal services to him because they know he can't pay. Get extradited with a public defendant (if he's lucky). Have a trial with a lawyer being provided by the DoJ (who happens to be the ones putting him on trial). 2. Get extradited with a team of really good lawyers who truly represent him. There really aren't any options that don't end with him extradited. Why wouldn't he want to be extradited on his terms rather than the government's. It also isn't rocket science that, regardless of whether the government is intentionally trying to get his legal team to desert him, delays are better for the government than they are for Dotcom. As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. It reeks of America strong-arming other countries to pursue an agenda that is in only its best interests. It is made worse by the high-level collusion between the government and Hollywood. It is topped off by a stinking pile that is a lack of respect for anybody's intellectual property except Hollywood's and a rotten cherry of government seizure that prevents somebody from defending themselves in court. (I suppose there is a 3rd option where he goes completely underground, but, again, with no money, that's going to be a tough thing to do.)

kiba 14y ago
As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. It reeks of America strong-arming other countries to pursue an agenda that is in only its best interests. It is made worse by the high-level collusion between the government and Hollywood. Best interest of the United States? What do the US gain from this other than getting votes for those elected in office and pleasing an insignificant and corrupt industry we called hollywood?
- Achshar 14y ago
  US as an entity does not gain anything. The hollywood spends a lot of money on lobbying, so the people who run US get money for "pleasing an insignificant and corrupt industry we called hollywood"
- briandear 14y ago
  You can blame Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem. Follow the money and vote the opposite. Their contributions aren't secret. We the people have access to the contribution records, yet people continue to vote for the people getting the money.
  - CodeMage 14y ago
    I'm sorry if my question is naive, but it's been bothering me for a while now: why doesn't anyone consider the lobbying itself to be the root problem? I'm not from the US, so I haven't grown up with that system and to me it sounds like legalized corruption. The only reason I can come up with for allowing lobbying is the same reason why people want to legalize drugs: illegal corruption would be a lot worse than legalized corruption. Is that it? Or am I missing something?
    - danielweber 14y ago
      For most people it's: "Lobbying is bad when it's for things I don't like." The ability to petition the government was so important to the Founders that they wrote it into the First Amendment. (Madison, among others, was hostile to the Bill Of Rights because he thought those were things that were obviously not allowed to government, and that delineating them would cause people to think that the Constitution was a list of the people's rights instead of a list of the powers granted to the government.) In the modern day, though, the government has so much power and influence over people's lives that it becomes necessary to spend a significant fraction of your attention -- or hire someone else to do it -- to government to make sure they aren't about to legislate you out of existence. See Uber as an example. Influencing government is usually a zero-sum game that people are forced to play. It would be swell if "the other side" unilaterally disarmed so we could disarm, too, but they don't trust us any more than we trust them.
      - CodeMage 14y ago
        Again, I seem to be missing something. Isn't there a great deal of difference between "petitioning the government" and "paying the government"? Here's an excerpt from briandear's comment about lobbying: We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem. It look pretty clear to me that there is some sort of mechanism in United States whereby people/organizations pay money to steer the government. That's what I was inquiring about.
- josteink 14y ago
  It is in the US's interest to protect "intellectual property", because right now that is the only profitable export it has. Not saying it's right from a moral perspective, but from an economic perspective I don't think there can be any doubt about that.
grecy 14y ago
> There really aren't any options that don't end with him extradited. The high court of NZ has ruled the search warrants used were illegal[1]. IANAL, but I would think that's grounds enough for the case to be thrown out and for NZ to never extradite him. [1]http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-search-warrants-ruled-illegal-by-high-court-120628/ http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-search-warrants-ruled-ill...
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  True, there may be another option: left in New Zealand broke with all of his assets frozen and unable to ever interact with the United States.
  - grecy 14y ago
    I would expect if the High Court of New Zealand decides the entire case is illegal and won't extradite him, they would stand up to the US/DOJ/FBI and try to get his assets unfrozen, property returned, etc. etc. If the US/DOJ/FBI don't do so, they would be breaking NZ law. You might say the US will just laugh in their faces, and while that might be true, it would be horrible publicity (which the US clearly doesn't need right now) and would probably just provide another reason for the rest of the world to give the US the middle finger in general. It wouldn't be the first time little NZ has stood up to the big guys [1] (see specifically 1984) (This was a very, very big deal when it happened) [1]http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/nuclear/nuclear-free-nz/anti-nuke-history-NZ/ http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/nuclear/n...
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      Given how much of the world's money flows through US banks, New Zealand could give everything back it wants to and still leave Dotcom broke (especially after legal fees) and without a company. New Zealand is awesome. It is on my list of most desirable countries to live in. But if the US doesn't release the holds they have, I question whether Dotcom will really get anything back. Remember, he is renting his house in NZ. It's not like he has a big chunk of money in a mansion that he can sell.
philwelch 14y ago
He could always go on the run with Julian Assange.
- wtvanhest 14y ago
  Not sure why this is down voted, it is a very legitimate point.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    Not really. If you like it as a comedic aside then fine but it's not a valid point in any sense beyond that. Assange currently has the run of the Ecuadorian embassy in London (roughly the size of a large flat) but the minute he leaves that (for instance to try to get to an airport) he'll be arrested for breaching his bail terms. Even if he's granted asylum (relatively unlikely) that won't change unless they make him an Ecuadorian diplomat with the diplomatic immunity that confers. That would however be essentially unheard of. Assange isn't going on the run anywhere.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      What if they put a big sticker on him that labels him as a diplomatic package? I'm only half joking. ;)
    - rvschuilenburg 14y ago
      From what i've always understood, if he is transported in a car together with a diplomat, the UK police are still not allowed to stop them. So he himself doesn't have to be a diplomat.
      - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        The Ecuadorian embassy isn't a huge building with it's own garage, it's a flat on the first floor. If you can get a car in to a first floor flat you may have a plan. Even if that weren't the case he's got to get out of the car to get into the plane at which point he's once again on British soil and can be arrested. Plus really, how much effort at the Ecuadorian government going to go to to piss off the British, American and Swedish governments? What they're doing now is following procedure, what you're proposing would be far more active.
powertower 14y ago
> As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. MU was the hub of piracy on the net. And from the figures posted, netted 400 million dollars from it. It's not something that was going to be ignored, even with a legitimate upload service being offered, because the primary monetary driver for that company was tricking and/or getting people to sign-up when visiting a page to d/l pirated content. All the US gov will have to show is a statistical sample of 10,000 random accounts, and correlate their signup to first entry ... a page hosting pirated content... More or less. And when that comes back to show that 99% of paid-users d/l pirated content, it's over. Anyone with access to the Apache or nginx access logs and the hosted files could do half of that in their sleep. What I'm sick of is there are people who choose to ignore the facts, and idolize this man who's entire history for the last two decades revolves around criminal activities and lawsuits. But hey, this is America and you're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you know of a better country... http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-full-length http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...
- kiba 14y ago
  What I'm sick of is there are people who choose to ignore the facts, and idolize this man who's entire history for the last two decades revolves around criminal activities and lawsuits. Providing paid access to pirated content is bad? Maybe hollywood should have taken that business model to heart.
- TheEskimo 14y ago
  >MU was the hub of piracy on the net I'd like a source for that. I believe TPB is and was in that position. I also believe that rapidshare and all those other sites had a similar amount of pirated content. In general you'd have a mirror of a given file across 3 or so sites which would indicate MU wasn't that far different from those commonly used as mirrors. >statistical sample of 10,000 random accounts, and correlate ... pirated content Why? That shows that people downloaded pirated content (which makes the downloaders guilty, not MU). I don't see how that makes MU guilty. >Anyone with access to the Apache or nginx access logs and the hosted files could do that in their sleep. uhhhhhh no. Not at all. How the heck to you figure out if a file is actually legal or not? How do you tell if a downloader of a file legitimately owned that file or not? An artist once distributed his album to me via MU after I paid (I wanted it in a different format than was avaliable via automatic download). I was a legal downloader, but if I gave the link to my friend he/she would have downloaded it illegally. To do such a thing they would have to first catagorize all the content, determine the copyright holder, ask the holder if it was a legal download, wait on the copyright holder to look through his/her probably nonexistant logs, and so on. This is not easy. > idolize this man who's entire history for the last two decades revolves around criminal activities and lawsuits. His past doesn't matter in this regard. I don't actually see how any of what you posted matters. Sure, there's piracy on MU. That doesn't mean it was illegal since they apparently obeyed the DMCA. >It's not something that was going to be ignored Indeed, it looks like the US government isn't ignoring it even though it was likely legal and are using underhanded methods in order to destroy the business, probably due to the lobbying money from the entertainment industry. If the government not following the law to persecute someone who's not breaking the law, and isn't even a citizan of the united states, doesn't make you sick to your stomach then I'm not sure what our government could do to do such a thing.
andyjsong 14y ago
Real option 3. Get legal financing[1] so he can hire competent lawyers and get a fair trial. If Dotcom is so confident that he'll win, why doesn't be borrow the money and counter sue for business interruption? Moreover, why doesn't a top law firm work on contingency? Win, get a huge payout on the counterclaim, lose nada. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing
hef19898 14y ago
These strong arming of other countries is something I really hate. Its underhanded and simply bad style and unworthy of democracies. A least for me. But the US aren't the only ones doing that, the EU isn't that much better. But freezing his assets all over the place and such, even for legal fees? In this case you actually trying to exclude him from support. If one might call this unbiased trials, ok. I don't. What I don't like about all this is that even if you go as far away from a certain legal system as you can for whatever reason you will never escape it. I'm not talking about being criminal, just about chossing the rules you want to live under. I think certain countries and people (and I'm not going after the US or anyone in particular) should learn to accept that individuals choose for themselves.

kiba 14y ago

As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. It reeks of America strong-arming other countries to pursue an agenda that is in only its best interests. It is made worse by the high-level collusion between the government and Hollywood. Best interest of the United States? What do the US gain from this other than getting votes for those elected in office and pleasing an insignificant and corrupt industry we called hollywood?

Achshar 14y ago
US as an entity does not gain anything. The hollywood spends a lot of money on lobbying, so the people who run US get money for "pleasing an insignificant and corrupt industry we called hollywood"
briandear 14y ago
You can blame Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem. Follow the money and vote the opposite. Their contributions aren't secret. We the people have access to the contribution records, yet people continue to vote for the people getting the money.
- CodeMage 14y ago
  I'm sorry if my question is naive, but it's been bothering me for a while now: why doesn't anyone consider the lobbying itself to be the root problem? I'm not from the US, so I haven't grown up with that system and to me it sounds like legalized corruption. The only reason I can come up with for allowing lobbying is the same reason why people want to legalize drugs: illegal corruption would be a lot worse than legalized corruption. Is that it? Or am I missing something?
  - danielweber 14y ago
    For most people it's: "Lobbying is bad when it's for things I don't like." The ability to petition the government was so important to the Founders that they wrote it into the First Amendment. (Madison, among others, was hostile to the Bill Of Rights because he thought those were things that were obviously not allowed to government, and that delineating them would cause people to think that the Constitution was a list of the people's rights instead of a list of the powers granted to the government.) In the modern day, though, the government has so much power and influence over people's lives that it becomes necessary to spend a significant fraction of your attention -- or hire someone else to do it -- to government to make sure they aren't about to legislate you out of existence. See Uber as an example. Influencing government is usually a zero-sum game that people are forced to play. It would be swell if "the other side" unilaterally disarmed so we could disarm, too, but they don't trust us any more than we trust them.
    - CodeMage 14y ago
      Again, I seem to be missing something. Isn't there a great deal of difference between "petitioning the government" and "paying the government"? Here's an excerpt from briandear's comment about lobbying: We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem. It look pretty clear to me that there is some sort of mechanism in United States whereby people/organizations pay money to steer the government. That's what I was inquiring about.
josteink 14y ago
It is in the US's interest to protect "intellectual property", because right now that is the only profitable export it has. Not saying it's right from a moral perspective, but from an economic perspective I don't think there can be any doubt about that.

grecy 14y ago

> There really aren't any options that don't end with him extradited. The high court of NZ has ruled the search warrants used were illegal[1]. IANAL, but I would think that's grounds enough for the case to be thrown out and for NZ to never extradite him. [1]http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-search-warrants-ruled-illegal-by-high-court-120628/ http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-search-warrants-ruled-ill...

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
True, there may be another option: left in New Zealand broke with all of his assets frozen and unable to ever interact with the United States.
- grecy 14y ago
  I would expect if the High Court of New Zealand decides the entire case is illegal and won't extradite him, they would stand up to the US/DOJ/FBI and try to get his assets unfrozen, property returned, etc. etc. If the US/DOJ/FBI don't do so, they would be breaking NZ law. You might say the US will just laugh in their faces, and while that might be true, it would be horrible publicity (which the US clearly doesn't need right now) and would probably just provide another reason for the rest of the world to give the US the middle finger in general. It wouldn't be the first time little NZ has stood up to the big guys [1] (see specifically 1984) (This was a very, very big deal when it happened) [1]http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/nuclear/nuclear-free-nz/anti-nuke-history-NZ/ http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/nuclear/n...
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    Given how much of the world's money flows through US banks, New Zealand could give everything back it wants to and still leave Dotcom broke (especially after legal fees) and without a company. New Zealand is awesome. It is on my list of most desirable countries to live in. But if the US doesn't release the holds they have, I question whether Dotcom will really get anything back. Remember, he is renting his house in NZ. It's not like he has a big chunk of money in a mansion that he can sell.

philwelch 14y ago

He could always go on the run with Julian Assange.

wtvanhest 14y ago
Not sure why this is down voted, it is a very legitimate point.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Not really. If you like it as a comedic aside then fine but it's not a valid point in any sense beyond that. Assange currently has the run of the Ecuadorian embassy in London (roughly the size of a large flat) but the minute he leaves that (for instance to try to get to an airport) he'll be arrested for breaching his bail terms. Even if he's granted asylum (relatively unlikely) that won't change unless they make him an Ecuadorian diplomat with the diplomatic immunity that confers. That would however be essentially unheard of. Assange isn't going on the run anywhere.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    What if they put a big sticker on him that labels him as a diplomatic package? I'm only half joking. ;)
  - rvschuilenburg 14y ago
    From what i've always understood, if he is transported in a car together with a diplomat, the UK police are still not allowed to stop them. So he himself doesn't have to be a diplomat.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      The Ecuadorian embassy isn't a huge building with it's own garage, it's a flat on the first floor. If you can get a car in to a first floor flat you may have a plan. Even if that weren't the case he's got to get out of the car to get into the plane at which point he's once again on British soil and can be arrested. Plus really, how much effort at the Ecuadorian government going to go to to piss off the British, American and Swedish governments? What they're doing now is following procedure, what you're proposing would be far more active.

powertower 14y ago

> As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. MU was the hub of piracy on the net. And from the figures posted, netted 400 million dollars from it. It's not something that was going to be ignored, even with a legitimate upload service being offered, because the primary monetary driver for that company was tricking and/or getting people to sign-up when visiting a page to d/l pirated content. All the US gov will have to show is a statistical sample of 10,000 random accounts, and correlate their signup to first entry ... a page hosting pirated content... More or less. And when that comes back to show that 99% of paid-users d/l pirated content, it's over. Anyone with access to the Apache or nginx access logs and the hosted files could do half of that in their sleep. What I'm sick of is there are people who choose to ignore the facts, and idolize this man who's entire history for the last two decades revolves around criminal activities and lawsuits. But hey, this is America and you're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you know of a better country... http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-full-length http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...

kiba 14y ago
What I'm sick of is there are people who choose to ignore the facts, and idolize this man who's entire history for the last two decades revolves around criminal activities and lawsuits. Providing paid access to pirated content is bad? Maybe hollywood should have taken that business model to heart.
TheEskimo 14y ago
>MU was the hub of piracy on the net I'd like a source for that. I believe TPB is and was in that position. I also believe that rapidshare and all those other sites had a similar amount of pirated content. In general you'd have a mirror of a given file across 3 or so sites which would indicate MU wasn't that far different from those commonly used as mirrors. >statistical sample of 10,000 random accounts, and correlate ... pirated content Why? That shows that people downloaded pirated content (which makes the downloaders guilty, not MU). I don't see how that makes MU guilty. >Anyone with access to the Apache or nginx access logs and the hosted files could do that in their sleep. uhhhhhh no. Not at all. How the heck to you figure out if a file is actually legal or not? How do you tell if a downloader of a file legitimately owned that file or not? An artist once distributed his album to me via MU after I paid (I wanted it in a different format than was avaliable via automatic download). I was a legal downloader, but if I gave the link to my friend he/she would have downloaded it illegally. To do such a thing they would have to first catagorize all the content, determine the copyright holder, ask the holder if it was a legal download, wait on the copyright holder to look through his/her probably nonexistant logs, and so on. This is not easy. > idolize this man who's entire history for the last two decades revolves around criminal activities and lawsuits. His past doesn't matter in this regard. I don't actually see how any of what you posted matters. Sure, there's piracy on MU. That doesn't mean it was illegal since they apparently obeyed the DMCA. >It's not something that was going to be ignored Indeed, it looks like the US government isn't ignoring it even though it was likely legal and are using underhanded methods in order to destroy the business, probably due to the lobbying money from the entertainment industry. If the government not following the law to persecute someone who's not breaking the law, and isn't even a citizan of the united states, doesn't make you sick to your stomach then I'm not sure what our government could do to do such a thing.

andyjsong 14y ago

Real option 3. Get legal financing[1] so he can hire competent lawyers and get a fair trial. If Dotcom is so confident that he'll win, why doesn't be borrow the money and counter sue for business interruption? Moreover, why doesn't a top law firm work on contingency? Win, get a huge payout on the counterclaim, lose nada. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing

hef19898 14y ago

These strong arming of other countries is something I really hate. Its underhanded and simply bad style and unworthy of democracies. A least for me. But the US aren't the only ones doing that, the EU isn't that much better. But freezing his assets all over the place and such, even for legal fees? In this case you actually trying to exclude him from support. If one might call this unbiased trials, ok. I don't. What I don't like about all this is that even if you go as far away from a certain legal system as you can for whatever reason you will never escape it. I'm not talking about being criminal, just about chossing the rules you want to live under. I think certain countries and people (and I'm not going after the US or anyone in particular) should learn to accept that individuals choose for themselves.