4 ms·

I don't get it. If the evidence is so overwhelming (emails, chat logs, skype logs) why in the world didn't the US use all this to take them down? Why the drama?

I don't get it. If the evidence is so overwhelming (emails, chat logs, skype logs) why in the world didn't the US use all this to take them down? Why the drama? The breaking of international rules and the violence?

shadowmint 13y ago
This is a PR move, it has nothing to do with a trial. This is a better coverage: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justice-department-releases-evidence-kim-667204 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justice-department-... (and shame on your ars, for not bothering to link to or quote the source material for your article) That's what has happened. Someone ordered this material released to try to counter the massive pressure the NZ government is under locally not to do comply with US requests for extradition. "This sounds like 191 pages of a meritless criminal theory,” Rothken said. "The notion that they keep piling on more evidence to bolster civil claims of secondary copyright infringement, to us look like they’re desperately trying to mislead the public.” Exactly. I'm not arguing that he (.com) was (and almost certainly still is) a Bad Guy who deliberately built his business on selling other peoples work, but this... is just PR posturing to try to counter the thus-far terribly terribly botched efforts of the justice department.
- bananacurve 13y ago
  >This is a PR move, it has nothing to do with a trial. I am not sure about your reading comprehension, it sounds like a slam dunk to me.
  - darkmarmot 13y ago
    Like Saddam's WMDs?
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Perhaps, but breaking laws to get evidence usually results in it being inadmissible. And wow did they break laws, all the way up to the PM. And they still are with the tracking and bugging that is going on.
    - bananacurve 13y ago
      Yes. NZ's incompetence may save his dumb ass.
- belluchan 13y ago
  If he is a bad guy it feels weird rooting for a bad guy. I feel like my perceptions about this entire thing are all backwards. If DotKom so bad why are they so bad at making him look bad. DotKom comes out looking like the martyr he wants to be seen as. Law enforcement look like they're private security for the entertainment industry. And yet it's clear this guy is possibly the worst kind of copyright infringer. He's not the individual who downloaded a song and is being sued for life and limb, this guy got unbelievable wealth of the work of others and still the whole thing feels wrong. Maybe we should be cheering law enforcement to bring this guy to justice but I can't help but root for the other side. The thing to blame is probably the decade of going after individuals and making them suffer has turned out to be such a huge public relations disaster that will last a generation. I just want the entertainment industry to fail and for copyright laws to fail as well.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    There can be more than one bad guy. Bad guys can also be mistreated. The world is not a movie with clearly delineated goodies and baddies.
  - Udo 13y ago
    That's because this notion of "bad guys" and "good guys" doesn't work in real life. It works in police and military situations where you take action against a declared enemy, but it's not a good tool for reasoning in a civilian setting. What you get there are not only different shades of bad, but also entirely different kinds of bad. To point, there is really no question that Dotcom is generally not a good guy. He is a shady business man at best. It just happens that many people consider his brand of evil to be absolutely dwarfed by the motives and tactics of his government adversaries.
  - vorg 13y ago
    > If DotKom so bad why are they so bad at making him look bad. To make Kim Dotcom look bad, just spell his surname with a K instead of a C in the middle. It evokes images of the German and Russian languages, rather than the French, and hence Nazi and Soviet undertones rather than romance and the Riviera. Imagery has more impact on public opinion than informed discussions.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  It's not clear to me, are you saying this was bitched by the US justice department? From the perspective of a New Zealander, I'd say it was well played. The dirty work was carried out over here by willing participants. The only down side has been that a few politicians who could not be more America friendly, mainly Banks and Key, have come out looking a touch dirty.
bananacurve 13y ago
If you had read the article you would know that much of the evidence was captured during the raid, which, contrary to popular belief, was carried out by NZ police, not the NSA.
- mercurial 13y ago
  The NSA does not raid people, even in the US. It is not a law enforcement agency. However, the raid was conducted at the behest of the US DOJ.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  I did read the article. I should articulate myself better: would it not have been easy for the us to use it's (nsa) powers to gather email and chatlogs?
  - beering 13y ago
    Because the NSA would rather use the data for more important things, like terrorism, war, and espionage of foreign governments. Even if just for public perception, I don't think anybody, NSA included, really wants the NSA to use its dragnet surveillance to prevent people from downloading DVD rips of Avatar.
    - digitalengineer 13y ago
      True, but this went all the way up to the vice-president. I don't think anybody, NSA included, really want the vice-president to use his powers to prevent people from downloading DVD rips of Avatar...
      - snowwrestler 13y ago
        Federal agencies are limited by the scope of their mission. The scope of the NSA's mission is defense, not criminal investigation and prosecution. And even if the NSA did collect the info, it's not clear that they could do so in a way that would allow it to be admissible in a federal court--making it effectively useless.

shadowmint 13y ago

This is a PR move, it has nothing to do with a trial. This is a better coverage: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justice-department-releases-evidence-kim-667204 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justice-department-... (and shame on your ars, for not bothering to link to or quote the source material for your article) That's what has happened. Someone ordered this material released to try to counter the massive pressure the NZ government is under locally not to do comply with US requests for extradition. "This sounds like 191 pages of a meritless criminal theory,” Rothken said. "The notion that they keep piling on more evidence to bolster civil claims of secondary copyright infringement, to us look like they’re desperately trying to mislead the public.” Exactly. I'm not arguing that he (.com) was (and almost certainly still is) a Bad Guy who deliberately built his business on selling other peoples work, but this... is just PR posturing to try to counter the thus-far terribly terribly botched efforts of the justice department.

bananacurve 13y ago
>This is a PR move, it has nothing to do with a trial. I am not sure about your reading comprehension, it sounds like a slam dunk to me.
- darkmarmot 13y ago
  Like Saddam's WMDs?
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Perhaps, but breaking laws to get evidence usually results in it being inadmissible. And wow did they break laws, all the way up to the PM. And they still are with the tracking and bugging that is going on.
  - bananacurve 13y ago
    Yes. NZ's incompetence may save his dumb ass.
belluchan 13y ago
If he is a bad guy it feels weird rooting for a bad guy. I feel like my perceptions about this entire thing are all backwards. If DotKom so bad why are they so bad at making him look bad. DotKom comes out looking like the martyr he wants to be seen as. Law enforcement look like they're private security for the entertainment industry. And yet it's clear this guy is possibly the worst kind of copyright infringer. He's not the individual who downloaded a song and is being sued for life and limb, this guy got unbelievable wealth of the work of others and still the whole thing feels wrong. Maybe we should be cheering law enforcement to bring this guy to justice but I can't help but root for the other side. The thing to blame is probably the decade of going after individuals and making them suffer has turned out to be such a huge public relations disaster that will last a generation. I just want the entertainment industry to fail and for copyright laws to fail as well.
- josephlord 13y ago
  There can be more than one bad guy. Bad guys can also be mistreated. The world is not a movie with clearly delineated goodies and baddies.
- Udo 13y ago
  That's because this notion of "bad guys" and "good guys" doesn't work in real life. It works in police and military situations where you take action against a declared enemy, but it's not a good tool for reasoning in a civilian setting. What you get there are not only different shades of bad, but also entirely different kinds of bad. To point, there is really no question that Dotcom is generally not a good guy. He is a shady business man at best. It just happens that many people consider his brand of evil to be absolutely dwarfed by the motives and tactics of his government adversaries.
- vorg 13y ago
  > If DotKom so bad why are they so bad at making him look bad. To make Kim Dotcom look bad, just spell his surname with a K instead of a C in the middle. It evokes images of the German and Russian languages, rather than the French, and hence Nazi and Soviet undertones rather than romance and the Riviera. Imagery has more impact on public opinion than informed discussions.
lostlogin 13y ago
It's not clear to me, are you saying this was bitched by the US justice department? From the perspective of a New Zealander, I'd say it was well played. The dirty work was carried out over here by willing participants. The only down side has been that a few politicians who could not be more America friendly, mainly Banks and Key, have come out looking a touch dirty.

bananacurve 13y ago

If you had read the article you would know that much of the evidence was captured during the raid, which, contrary to popular belief, was carried out by NZ police, not the NSA.

mercurial 13y ago
The NSA does not raid people, even in the US. It is not a law enforcement agency. However, the raid was conducted at the behest of the US DOJ.
digitalengineer 13y ago
I did read the article. I should articulate myself better: would it not have been easy for the us to use it's (nsa) powers to gather email and chatlogs?
- beering 13y ago
  Because the NSA would rather use the data for more important things, like terrorism, war, and espionage of foreign governments. Even if just for public perception, I don't think anybody, NSA included, really wants the NSA to use its dragnet surveillance to prevent people from downloading DVD rips of Avatar.
  - digitalengineer 13y ago
    True, but this went all the way up to the vice-president. I don't think anybody, NSA included, really want the vice-president to use his powers to prevent people from downloading DVD rips of Avatar...
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      Federal agencies are limited by the scope of their mission. The scope of the NSA's mission is defense, not criminal investigation and prosecution. And even if the NSA did collect the info, it's not clear that they could do so in a way that would allow it to be admissible in a federal court--making it effectively useless.