ol' Dotcom is now free

[xox]

The fact is that when files in breach of copyright were found they were dealt with accordingly. It's not like the people uploading the illegal content told him they were doing it. 

 

As i already stated, the system was exploitable in a way but it had setups in place to deal with such matters, so he was doing his job right, and keeping within the boundaries of the law.

It's all up for debate I guess

 

I personally think he was being negligent and therefore wrong; but you never know, he could just be stupid and didn't understand the business risks

[LAwLz]

It was quite clear that he knew that megaupload was used for piracy: it takes an idiot not to know that.

Since he knew and was doing very little about the whole thing, he is actually condoning piracy of millions of items.

Plus, he was the manager of the business and whenever they do something wrong, they are responsible. A big paycheck comes with great responsibility.

 

Furthermore, the hard drives were his asset, and if you have illegal things on your property, it is your responsiility to deal with them.

It's like you have a weed farm in your attic, know it's there and don't do anything about it because you didn't put it there. There is still a fucking weed farm in your attic, just because you chose to ignore it, doesn't make it right and not an offense. He is an adult, and is completely responsible for his property and what happens on his property.

See:

This just in, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dropbox and other cloud services currently had all servers seized by US government for Piracy, and CEO's being taken to court after being Raided by Special Police services.

 

Users of those services have permanently lost off their data, never to receive it again.

 

Again, we have safe harbor laws for a reason.

Apple, Google, Microsoft and Dropbox knows that there is illegal content on their services. Should they be taken to court, sentenced and have all data (including all the legal data) on their services be erased because of it? Of course not. That is completely absurd.

 

The hard drives being owned by him is irrelevant, just like you won't end up guilty if your friend left something at your home and then someone broke in and stole that item. You knew that there was a possibility of someone breaking into your house and you locked the door. Just because you own something that was used in a crime doesn't mean you should be held responsible.

Again, if I upload something to LinusTechTips.com that is copyrighted then Linus should NOT be held responsible.

 

Even if you think that Kim did something wrong, the law is in his side. The prosecutors on the other hand have made flat out illegal things such as deleting things that could have been used to prove him innocent, they monitored him without the appropriate warrants and might have deleted a huge amount of legal data from just your average Joe.

 

 

Edit:

Want a weed analogy?

Your local golf club allows you to rent lockers to store your golf bags inside. One day the police shows up and arrests the owner of the club because weed was found in one of the lockers. Not only do the police arrest the owner, but they also confiscate the golf clubs of all other members and shuts the club down. The one who rented the locker and put the weed in it is completely ignored though.

Sounds fair to you?

[Fulgrim]

See:

 

Again, we have safe harbor laws for a reason.

Apple, Google, Microsoft and Dropbox knows that there is illegal content on their services. Should they be taken to court, sentenced and have all data (including all the legal data) on their services be erased because of it? Of course not. That is completely absurd.

 

The hard drives being owned by him is irrelevant, just like you won't end up guilty if your friend left something at your home and then someone broke in and stole that item. You knew that there was a possibility of someone breaking into your house and you locked the door. Just because you own something that was used in a crime doesn't mean you should be held responsible.

Again, if I upload something to LinusTechTips.com that is copyrighted then Linus should NOT be held responsible.

 

Even if you think that Kim did something wrong, the law is in his side. The prosecutors on the other hand have made flat out illegal things such as deleting things that could have been used to prove him innocent, they monitored him without the appropriate warrants and might have deleted a huge amount of legal data from just your average Joe.

[xox]

The hard drives being owned by him is irrelevant, just like you won't end up guilty if your friend left something at your home and then someone broke in and stole that item. You knew that there was a possibility of someone breaking into your house and you locked the door. Just because you own something that was used in a crime doesn't mean you should be held responsible.

Again, if I upload something to LinusTechTips.com that is copyrighted then Linus should NOT be held responsible.

 

Even if you think that Kim did something wrong, the law is in his side. The prosecutors on the other hand have made flat out illegal things such as deleting things that could have been used to prove him innocent, they monitored him without the appropriate warrants and might have deleted a huge amount of legal data from just your average Joe.

To the point about the friend leaving something (let's say a gun, for instance) at your house:

 

You would have to apply that he sort of knew he left the gun behind and that he didn't want to 'know' it was a gun just in case it was and he would have to do something about it.

Kim knew there was pirate material on his website, but he didn't want to 'know' about it because it would incriminate him.

 

 

To the point about warrants etc.

 

I don't think anything should have been done until he was sentenced. It is absurd that his property was taken from him before he could say anything.

 

 

To the point about Google etc (EDIT):

 

Google has tighter means to control the stuff on their website, they do more to curb piracy. Megaupload has measly methods, which was negligent of Kim.

Edited November 28, 2014 by tomlambert01

[Fulgrim]

To the point about the friend leaving something (let's say a gun, for instance) at your house:

 

You would have to apply that he sort of knew he left the gun behind and that he didn't want to 'know' it was a gun just in case it was and he would have to do something about it.

Kim knew there was pirate material on his website, but he didn't want to 'know' about it because it would incriminate him.

 

 

To the point about warrants etc.

 

I don't think anything should have been done until he was sentenced. It is absurd that his property was taken from him before he could say anything.

 

 

To the point about Google etc (EDIT):

Google has tighter means to control the stuff on their website, they do more to curb piracy

No. Just no.

 

He was aware of people would at some point exploit his services so he put measures in place to deal with it. Saying he chose to ignore it in a way is absolutely silly. If he ignored that it was going on, why did he implement a report system for illegal file sharing, as well as processing take down notices from copyright firms? 

[xox]

No. Just no.

 

He was aware of people would at some point exploit his services so he put measures in place to deal with it. Saying he chose to ignore it in a way is absolutely silly. If he ignored that it was going on, why did he implement a report system for illegal file sharing, as well as processing take down notices from copyright firms? 

He was clearly aware that people were exploiting the service; it was made clear that Megaupload had a reputation whereby pirates were lightly let off. Even Google displayed search results linking to illegal content [on the site] because Megaupload had become so ubiquitous [and synonymous with piracy].

 

The take-down system was measly in comparison to what it should have been. The court heard in the trial that Megaupload were sitting on a backlog of take-down notices. It was obvious that Kim was not acting 100% within the confines of the law [or wasn't acting on what he was obliged to do].

[LAwLz]

He was clearly aware that people were exploiting the service; it was made clear that Megaupload had a reputation whereby pirates were lightly let off. Even Google displayed search results linking to illegal content [on the site] because Megaupload had become so ubiquitous [and synonymous with piracy].

 

The take-down system was measly in comparison to what it should have been. The court heard in the trial that Megaupload were sitting on a backlog of take-down notices. It was obvious that Kim was not acting 100% within the confines of the law [or wasn't acting on what he was obliged to do].

Of course he was aware that people were exploiting the service. Hardware store are aware that some of the crowbars they sell will end up being used to for burglary as well.

 

Of course there would be a backlog of take-down requests. The only way to not have any backlog would be to instantly delete everything that was reported. That would be extremely abused.

Microsoft, Google, Apple and Dropbox are all aware that their services are being used to spread illegal things, and they are trying to fight against it. Should those services be removed as well and all the legal data be deleted?

[Yoinkerman]

He was clearly aware that people were exploiting the service; it was made clear that Megaupload had a reputation whereby pirates were lightly let off. Even Google displayed search results linking to illegal content [on the site] because Megaupload had become so ubiquitous [and synonymous with piracy].

The take-down system was measly in comparison to what it should have been. The court heard in the trial that Megaupload were sitting on a backlog of take-down notices. It was obvious that Kim was not acting 100% within the confines of the law [or wasn't acting on what he was obliged to do].

Criminals take advantage of roads every day, should we hold municipalities and States liable for their crimes?

[Toddwjp]

He was clearly aware that people were exploiting the service; it was made clear that Megaupload had a reputation whereby pirates were lightly let off. Even Google displayed search results linking to illegal content [on the site] because Megaupload had become so ubiquitous [and synonymous with piracy].

 

The take-down system was measly in comparison to what it should have been. The court heard in the trial that Megaupload were sitting on a backlog of take-down notices. It was obvious that Kim was not acting 100% within the confines of the law [or wasn't acting on what he was obliged to do].

 

even if we did decide that some action needs to be taken with him the usa has absolutely no right to prosecute him, hes never even set foot in america. if new Zealand decided to bring charges it would be fine

[Fulgrim]

even if we did decide that some action needs to be taken with him the usa has absolutely no right to prosecute him, hes never even set foot in america. if new Zealand decided to bring charges it would be fine

He purchased some servers in the US, the corporations then used that as an excuse to seize all servers, in ones outside of US jurisdiction. And they obtained access to them illegally.

[WolfDeville]

Psykomantis00, on 29 Nov 2014 - 01:06 AM, said:

Another person added to the list of LTT idiots. 

Give the kid a break lol.

[xox]

Of course he was aware that people were exploiting the service. Hardware store are aware that some of the crowbars they sell will end up being used to for burglary as well.

 

Of course there would be a backlog of take-down requests. The only way to not have any backlog would be to instantly delete everything that was reported. That would be extremely abused.

Microsoft, Google, Apple and Dropbox are all aware that their services are being used to spread illegal things, and they are trying to fight against it. Should those services be removed as well and all the legal data be deleted?

Again (and I've addressed this point in multiple previous posts), he was not doing enough.

[LAwLz]

Again (and I've addressed this point in multiple previous posts), he was not doing enough.

That's subjective.

What should he have done differently to make it okay in your eyes?

[cesrai]

I maintain the standpoint that he was a criminal, he knew of the risks with the illegal material on his servers, so he should be held accountable for his actions

Then Dropbox, googledrive, icloud, onedrive, youtube, dailymotion, etc... owners are all criminals.

 

And what @Yoinkerman and others said.

[cesrai]

That's subjective.

What should he have done differently to make it okay in your eyes?

Turn to NSA.

[xox]

That's subjective.

What should he have done differently to make it okay in your eyes?

Well, he could have done either of these things when he saw the warning signs to get out of the mess:

1. Shut down MegaUpload, after all, he had made his money and after seeing it was swamped by piracy, you could say the moral thing to do was to shut it down
2. Resign as CEO of MegaUpload (or sell it) and transfer his assets to the company, which would have also been a moral option but less so because he's just dumping the problem on the next miserable sod to come along.
3. Implement a better counter-piracy system. The reason for all this mess in the first place (or from what I interpreted it as) was that he was too relaxed about piracy and was not taking it seriously. Content creators rallied and lobbies because their "profits" were being taken away. If Kim had adopted a strong anti-piracy agenda, maybe he would be in a much better place today..

EDIT:

Yeah, it's subjective, it all depends how on how you see property, business and liberties.

Edited November 28, 2014 by tomlambert01

[cesrai]

 

Well, he could have done either of these things when he saw the warning signs to get out of the mess:

1.  
2. Shut down MegaUpload, after all, he had made his money and after seeing it was swamped by piracy, you could say the moral thing to do is to shut it down
3.  
4. Resign as CEO of MegaUpload (or sell it) and transfer his assets to the company, which would have also been a moral option but less so because he's just dumping the problem on the next miserable sod.
5.  
6. Implement a better counter-piracy system. The reason for all this mess in the first place (or from what I interpreted it as) was that he was too relaxed about piracy and was not taking it seriously. Content creators rallied and lobbies because their "profits" were being taken away. If Kim had adopted a strong anti-piracy agenda, maybe he would be in a much better place today.
7.  

 

 

Really shutdown MegaUpload and resign you just don't make sense like @LAwLz said:

Want a weed analogy?

Your local golf club allows you to rent lockers to store your golf bags inside. One day the police shows up and arrests the owner of the club because weed was found in one of the lockers. Not only do the police arrest the owner, but they also confiscate the golf clubs of all other members and shuts the club down. The one who rented the locker and put the weed in it is completely ignored though.

Sounds fair to you?

 

If a criminal uses my services why should I shutdown my services or resign, his anti copyright materiel was good and a copyrighted *insert name* doesn't equal an actual purchase, give a source about his anti copyright policy that was relaxed it was a good system, if we go with your reasons the owners of dropbox, etc... should resign and shutdown their services or resign and improve their anti copyright material system. 

[Fulgrim]

 

Well, he could have done either of these things when he saw the warning signs to get out of the mess:

1. Shut down MegaUpload, after all, he had made his money and after seeing it was swamped by piracy, you could say the moral thing to do was to shut it down
2. Resign as CEO of MegaUpload (or sell it) and transfer his assets to the company, which would have also been a moral option but less so because he's just dumping the problem on the next miserable sod to come along.
3. Implement a better counter-piracy system. The reason for all this mess in the first place (or from what I interpreted it as) was that he was too relaxed about piracy and was not taking it seriously. Content creators rallied and lobbies because their "profits" were being taken away. If Kim had adopted a strong anti-piracy agenda, maybe he would be in a much better place today.

 

Assumed you were trolling or just didn't fully comprehend the whole Kim Dotcom/Megaupload thing. But you've now confirmed yourself to be mentally retarded.

 

[xox]

Really shutdown MegaUpload and resign you just don't make sense like @LAwLz said 'spoiler' Want a weed analogy?

Your local golf club allows you to rent lockers to store your golf bags inside. One day the police shows up and arrests the owner of the club because weed was found in one of the lockers. Not only do the police arrest the owner, but they also confiscate the golf clubs of all other members and shuts the club down. The one who rented the locker and put the weed in it is completely ignored though.

Sounds fair to you? '/spoiler'

Trust me, I like weed analogies, I do, but it's not like that, I'll give you another analogy in case you didn't get my feelings upon this issue from my previous posts:

1. People from the Middle East and Asia (eg: Afghanistan, Syria etc)wait at the port of Calais to board lorries on their way to Dover and on to England, there, they hope for a better life etc.
2. They jump on to a lorry and attach themselves to the underside of the lorry as it goes towards the ferry loading dock
3. Remember, the driver has no clue of what is going on
4. They board the ferry and arrive in Dover
5. In Dover, a spot-check is performed to search for stow-aways
6. The immigrant has been apprehended
7. The driver is fined £10,000 per person, regardless of whether he knew or not.

Do you think this is fair? The driver had no idea of it but still, he has been fined and possibly even had to endure a prison sentence. I've mentioned this point before, but he is responsible for what is in his control. He should therefore face the penalties as he has been negligent. As is (or what I believe to be) the case with Kim. Except that in Kim's case, we know that he knew it was going on, but he chose to take a blind eye to it.

[cesrai]

Trust me, I like weed analogies, I do, but it's not like that, I'll give you another analogy in case you didn't get my feelings upon this issue from my previous posts:

1. People from the Middle East and Asia (eg: Afghanistan, Syria etc)wait at the port of Calais to board lorries on their way to Dover and on to England, there, they hope for a better life etc.
2. They jump on to a lorry and attach themselves to the underside of the lorry as it goes towards the ferry loading dock
3. Remember, the driver has no clue of what is going on
4. They board the ferry and arrive in Dover
5. In Dover, a spot-check is performed to search for stow-aways
6. The immigrant has been apprehended
7. The driver is fined £10,000 per person, regardless of whether he knew or not.

Do you think this is fair? The driver had no idea of it but still, he has been fined and possibly even had to endure a prison sentence. I've mentioned this point before, but he is responsible for what is in his control. He should therefore face the penalties as he has been negligent. As is (or what I believe to be) the case with Kim. Except that in Kim's case, we know that he knew it was going on, but he chose to take a blind eye to it.

 

 

No it isn't fair and exactly where that happens you have a source I have never seen that or heard of it, this is how it goes according to my knowledge:

 

1. Make a deal with a Trafficker.

2.The Trafficker makes closes the deal with you and sets a transportation for you.

3. You get *insert name here* and you aboard it.

4. You get to your destination then pay the Trafficker.

5. Trafficker then splits the money with his partners.

 

You may die or get caught in these situations you never saw the Trafficker you don't know anything.

[DildorTheDecent]

Mega Upload was good. 

 

RIP Mega Upload. 

[xox]

No it isn't fair and exactly where that happens you have a source I have never seen that or heard of it, this is how it goes according to my knowledge:

 

1. Make a deal with a Trafficker.

2.The Trafficker makes closes the deal with you and sets a transportation for you.

3. You get *insert name here* and you aboard it.

4. You get to your destination then pay the Trafficker.

5. Trafficker then splits the money with his partners.

 

You may die or get caught in these situations you never saw the Trafficker you don't know anything.

My point is that that is the worst case scenario, but let's apply this to intellectual property here, you could have a website that is advocating piracy and such, so the fines and server repossession are there to deter pirates and make legitimate file sharing websites check over the files that they have and/or to create more robust systems. Just as fining lorry drivers is to deter those who are involved in human trafficking and make legitimate lorry drivers think twice and check their vehicle before boarding the ferry for England.

[cesrai]

My point is that that is the worst case scenario, but let's apply this to intellectual property here, you could have a website that is advocating piracy and such, so the fines and server repossession are there to deter pirates and make legitimate file sharing websites check over the files that they have and/or to create more robust systems. Just as fining lorry drivers is to deter those who are involved in human trafficking and make legitimate lorry drivers think twice and check their vehicle before boarding the ferry for England.

Will that is reasonable but you saying that Kim.Com is a criminal is different.

[xox]

Will that is reasonable but you saying that Kim.Com is a criminal is different.

If a project goes to pot, the boss answers for it.

 

In my opinion, since he is 'the boss', he has to take the stick if it goes down the shitter. As does the lorry driver if he did not check the underside of his lorry. As do you if you have a weed farm in your attic .

[LAwLz]

Well, he could have done either of these things when he saw the warning signs to get out of the mess:

1. Shut down MegaUpload, after all, he had made his money and after seeing it was swamped by piracy, you could say the moral thing to do was to shut it down
2. Resign as CEO of MegaUpload (or sell it) and transfer his assets to the company, which would have also been a moral option but less so because he's just dumping the problem on the next miserable sod to come along.
3. Implement a better counter-piracy system. The reason for all this mess in the first place (or from what I interpreted it as) was that he was too relaxed about piracy and was not taking it seriously. Content creators rallied and lobbies because their "profits" were being taken away. If Kim had adopted a strong anti-piracy agenda, maybe he would be in a much better place today..

EDIT:

Yeah, it's subjective, it all depends how on how you see property, business and liberties.

Option 1 and 2 are basically "some people use it for illegal things so therefore it should be shut down". That's stupid.

Do you think Youtube should be shut down as well because people upload a lot of copyrighted content to it? Do you think Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive should be shut down because people upload copyrighted content to it?

We have safe harbor laws for a reason, and they protect people like Linus, Google, Microsoft as well as Kim Dotcom. Just look at my golf analogy again. Should all the legit users and the owner of the golf club be punished because someone decided to store weed in one of the lockers? Of course not. The only logical thing would be to go after the one who actually put the weed in the locker to begin with.

 

As for point 3, what kind of anti-piracy system would you suggest? There was already a report feature and the content creators themselves used it a lot (and to great success).

 

 

I didn't mean it was subjective because of "is piracy really bad?". I meant your statement was subjective because there is no objective measurement of "trying to fight piracy enough". Some might say the report button was enough and some might say it wasn't enough.

That's what I meant by "that's subjective".