8 ms·

Maybe you're talking some sense here but remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons. If you ask me, he's just some fat kid with a website

Maybe you're talking some sense here but remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons. If you ask me, he's just some fat kid with a website who likes pretty girls and video games. I support copyrights as much as anyone and have criticized this "Mega" fool but the way he was treated was outrageous. If RIAA wants any sympathy they need to get with the program.

rayiner 13y ago
Don't get me wrong, I think the Megaupload prosecution was a waste of scarce federal resources. I don't even think copyright infringement should be a criminal issue (blame Microsoft and the BSA for turning it into one). I'm just commenting on the U.S.'s right to enforce its laws internationally to the extent the activity is targeted at or has major impact on the U.S.
- belorn 13y ago
  Megaupload disk service had an major impact on the U.S.? How exactly can a company that buy and rents out disk space do a major impact on the fourth-largest country in the world? I could see how such company could be threatening for those currently funding election campaigns, and thus indirectly causing those ruling the U.S. to take notice, but is/should the reaction cause major impact to the U.S.? If it is, then what does that say about a nation ruled by the people for the people?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    So the U.S. can only take action against entities who cause a discernable direct major impact against the U.S. now?
    - Selfcommit 13y ago
      Yes. Is that really such a bad thing?
      - mpyne 13y ago
        "I'm glad you wrote to your Representative, Ms. Concerned Voter, but I regret to inform you that because the amount of taxpayer fraud you witnessed was less than $5,000,000 that the Department of Justice would be powerless to bring charges even if I referred the case to them. $5,000,000 is a stupendously minor offense in the grand scheme of the budget, and minor offenses no longer warrant charges after the Major Crimes Prioritization Act of 2018."
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Of course. That means the U.S. would have no way to protect its citizens against harms from abroad unless they amounted to national harms. Understanding that HN isn't a hive-mind, I still find it deeply ironic that a website full of people saying that the U.S. is overreaching by prosecuting MegaUpload was in a different context calling for the aggressive prosecution of HSBC (a non-U.S. company who broke U.S. laws not on U.S. soil).
        fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >I still find it deeply ironic that a website full of people saying that the U.S. is overreaching by prosecuting MegaUpload was in a different context calling for the aggressive prosecution of HSBC (a non-U.S. company who broke U.S. laws not on U.S. soil). What on Earth are you talking about? Some other HSBC? http://hsbclocations.com/united_states/ http://hsbclocations.com/united_states/ >HSBC Bank USA, National Association, an American subsidiary of UK-based HSBC Holdings plc, is a bank with its operational head office in New York City and its nominal head office in McLean, Virginia (as designated on its charter). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act, which means that it is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. © HSBC Bank USA, N.A. 2013. All Rights Reserved. Member FDIC.
        rayiner 13y ago
        HSBC Bank USA was not the entity that laundered the money. The target of the DOJ probe and the organization that paid the fine was HSBC Holdings, the U.K. entity. If you want to argue that HSBC the larger entity had a presence in the U.S., even though the problems did not arise out of that U.S. presence, how do you deal with the fact that Megaupload had U.S. servers?
pjbrunet 13y ago
@rayiner I can't reply to you directly for whatever reason. Maybe we're not getting the whole story. Reminds me of the McAfee story, some nut building what looks like a meth lab in the jungle, is he nuts or just trying to impress his girlfriend? Why does he have a safe room? Anyway, at least he lived to tell the story! Rad helicopter footage!
youngerdryas 13y ago
>remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI. Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? Was the minister held at gunpoint? If you read torrent freak you probably think so.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotcom_apology/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotc... and http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-prime-minister-apologizes-to-kim-dotcom/ http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-pri... "If they had been more thorough in what they had done, they would have worked out that Mr. Dotcom had a residence class visa, and therefore was protected by the law," "Frankly, I’m pretty appalled by what I’ve seen because these are basic errors." "This is really a matter of mistake and human error, not one of a great conspiracy," "the agency has let itself down very badly."
- vorg 13y ago
  > That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI The attack against Kim Dotcom cascaded through many intermediaries. Although the NZ police were performing the raid, the FBI were observing and involved in the planning. Their involvement and NZ govt approval were commissioned (deniably, of course) by US politicians such as Joe Biden, ultimately sourcing back to big money in Hollywood. I'm also the subject of that type of cascading attack, sourcing back to someone in Silicon Valley (http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8 http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8).

rayiner 13y ago

Don't get me wrong, I think the Megaupload prosecution was a waste of scarce federal resources. I don't even think copyright infringement should be a criminal issue (blame Microsoft and the BSA for turning it into one). I'm just commenting on the U.S.'s right to enforce its laws internationally to the extent the activity is targeted at or has major impact on the U.S.

belorn 13y ago
Megaupload disk service had an major impact on the U.S.? How exactly can a company that buy and rents out disk space do a major impact on the fourth-largest country in the world? I could see how such company could be threatening for those currently funding election campaigns, and thus indirectly causing those ruling the U.S. to take notice, but is/should the reaction cause major impact to the U.S.? If it is, then what does that say about a nation ruled by the people for the people?
- mpyne 13y ago
  So the U.S. can only take action against entities who cause a discernable direct major impact against the U.S. now?
  - Selfcommit 13y ago
    Yes. Is that really such a bad thing?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      "I'm glad you wrote to your Representative, Ms. Concerned Voter, but I regret to inform you that because the amount of taxpayer fraud you witnessed was less than $5,000,000 that the Department of Justice would be powerless to bring charges even if I referred the case to them. $5,000,000 is a stupendously minor offense in the grand scheme of the budget, and minor offenses no longer warrant charges after the Major Crimes Prioritization Act of 2018."
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Of course. That means the U.S. would have no way to protect its citizens against harms from abroad unless they amounted to national harms. Understanding that HN isn't a hive-mind, I still find it deeply ironic that a website full of people saying that the U.S. is overreaching by prosecuting MegaUpload was in a different context calling for the aggressive prosecution of HSBC (a non-U.S. company who broke U.S. laws not on U.S. soil).
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >I still find it deeply ironic that a website full of people saying that the U.S. is overreaching by prosecuting MegaUpload was in a different context calling for the aggressive prosecution of HSBC (a non-U.S. company who broke U.S. laws not on U.S. soil). What on Earth are you talking about? Some other HSBC? http://hsbclocations.com/united_states/ http://hsbclocations.com/united_states/ >HSBC Bank USA, National Association, an American subsidiary of UK-based HSBC Holdings plc, is a bank with its operational head office in New York City and its nominal head office in McLean, Virginia (as designated on its charter). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act, which means that it is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. © HSBC Bank USA, N.A. 2013. All Rights Reserved. Member FDIC.
        rayiner 13y ago
        HSBC Bank USA was not the entity that laundered the money. The target of the DOJ probe and the organization that paid the fine was HSBC Holdings, the U.K. entity. If you want to argue that HSBC the larger entity had a presence in the U.S., even though the problems did not arise out of that U.S. presence, how do you deal with the fact that Megaupload had U.S. servers?

pjbrunet 13y ago

@rayiner I can't reply to you directly for whatever reason. Maybe we're not getting the whole story. Reminds me of the McAfee story, some nut building what looks like a meth lab in the jungle, is he nuts or just trying to impress his girlfriend? Why does he have a safe room? Anyway, at least he lived to tell the story! Rad helicopter footage!

youngerdryas 13y ago

>remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI. Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? Was the minister held at gunpoint? If you read torrent freak you probably think so.

rbanffy 13y ago
> Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotcom_apology/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotc... and http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-prime-minister-apologizes-to-kim-dotcom/ http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-pri... "If they had been more thorough in what they had done, they would have worked out that Mr. Dotcom had a residence class visa, and therefore was protected by the law," "Frankly, I’m pretty appalled by what I’ve seen because these are basic errors." "This is really a matter of mistake and human error, not one of a great conspiracy," "the agency has let itself down very badly."
vorg 13y ago
> That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI The attack against Kim Dotcom cascaded through many intermediaries. Although the NZ police were performing the raid, the FBI were observing and involved in the planning. Their involvement and NZ govt approval were commissioned (deniably, of course) by US politicians such as Joe Biden, ultimately sourcing back to big money in Hollywood. I'm also the subject of that type of cascading attack, sourcing back to someone in Silicon Valley (http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8 http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8).