Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kim Dotcom Offers $5 Million Bounty To Defeat Extradition

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the money-talks dept.

The Almighty Buck 253

heretic108 (454817) writes "Internet mega-entrepreneur, uber-gamer and now NZ political corruption-buster Kim DotCom has posted a bounty of $5 million to anyone who can dig up any dirt which saves him from extradition to the U.S.. This bounty would be payable not only to government employees, but also to anyone who can retrieve documents clearly proving corruption in the whole prosecution process. 'We are asking for information that proves unlawful or corrupt conduct by the US government, the New Zealand government, spy agencies, law enforcement and Hollywood', Dotcom told website Torrentfreak.com."

cancel ×

253 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47193959)

The US Government is corrupt in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2. You needn't prove it to know it is true.

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47193969)

"It's not what you know. It's what you can prove in court" -- Law Abiding Citizen

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47194117)

"It's not what you know. It's what you can prove in court" -- Law Abiding Citizen

It's not what you know in court, but how much the President likes the cut of your jib.

- What Bill Gates could have said after the DOJ let MS off the hook Scott-free for antitrust violations.

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47194131)

The US Government is corrupt in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2. You needn't prove it to know it is true.

That's true of all government.

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (-1, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 months ago | (#47194181)

How would general corruption of the United States or any government help prevent extradition, for illegal activity?

It sounds like Kim Dotcom is being corrupt to pay for people to dig up dirt on the US by any means necessary to save his own but.

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47194371)

i wouldnt call it being corrupt, hes not asking people to make stuff up, he is asking for people to expose corruptness, and putting a reward for doing so. is it wrong? probably but i wouldnt call it corrupt

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (2, Insightful)

butalearner (1235200) | about 4 months ago | (#47194513)

It is illegal to expose illegalities performed by US officials, so Kim Dotcom performing a corrupt action in hopes that someone involved in the process is corrupt enough to expose the corruption.

He's going about bribery all wrong though; it's not illegal if you call it "campaign donations."

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (3, Insightful)

DrLang21 (900992) | about 4 months ago | (#47194551)

Wait what? It's corrupt to expose illegal activities commited by US officials and being hidden by the US government?

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47194747)

well im sure they think as much, i mean look at how they are railroading snowden for doing so

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194259)

Ladies and gentlemen: The average Slashdotter. Equally ignorant of politics and maths, but possessing a large amount of empty, cheap sarcasm, and convinced that makes him superior to all around him.

Re:Al-Gebra (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 4 months ago | (#47194709)

1 + X = 2
ftfy.
Mathematics does prove it, BTW.

Re:US Government is Corrupt by Inspection (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47194763)

The US Government is corrupt in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2. You needn't prove it to know it is true.

Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell actually needed about 378 pages to prove that 1+1=2, in their Principia Mathematica.

From wikipedia:

"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." —Volume I, 1st edition, page 379 (page 362 in 2nd edition; page 360 in abridged version). (The proof is actually completed in Volume II, 1st edition, page 86, accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

Like a bank robber using the loot to post bail (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47193967)

and the amscraying.

How about a Kickstarter... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47193971)

$5 million to anyone who assists substantially in getting this blowhard extradited?

His sort is the reason society is so far away from accepting the idea of abandoning intellectual property, and he is a far greater enemy than the copyright cartels.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 4 months ago | (#47193987)

His sort is the reason society is so far away from accepting the idea of abandoning intellectual property,

As if there are only a handful of people who don't care about intellectual property. Millions would happily do copyright infringement if there were no adverse consequences.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (5, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47194045)

Hundreds of millions of people _do_ do copyright infringement, because there are typically no adverse consequences.

FTFY.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (-1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 4 months ago | (#47194087)

If it's not yours, don't take it without permission.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47194109)

If it's not yours, don't take it without permission.

If it's not just yours, pay a corrupt legislature to make it exclusively yours, and to make anyone else using it a criminal offense, enforced by the threat of violence.

Fixed that for you.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194155)

If it's not just yours, pay a corrupt legislature to make it exclusively yours, and to make anyone else using it a criminal offense, enforced by the threat of violence.

Well, that's certainly why Kim's rich, yeah.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194275)

In what way does a somewhat detailed description of Disney's modus operandi describe Kim Dotcom? Are you a fucktard? Is that your problem? It seems like your problem.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (0, Flamebait)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 4 months ago | (#47194899)

It's amazing how corrupt Hollywood is, they went back to 1787 to bribe the founding fathers to include copyright in the constitution.

It's not just that Kim Dotcom pirated materials, it's that he knowingly did it and took huge sacks of cash in advertising revenue from the worst scumbags in online advertising.

It's not just piracy, piracy is a major issue, but the even bigger issue is the racketeering(Hint: Doing something illegal and making a LOT of money off of it is REALLY illegal). Megaupload wasn't just serving up files, it was implicitly advertising itself as a piracy haven.

Kim Dotcom can kiss my ass.

"Your honor, we find the defendant INCREDIBLY guilty."

Re:How about Kindergarten? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194157)

You're changing the topic. He stated: "Hundreds of millions of people _do_ do copyright infringement, because there are typically no adverse consequences." How does whining about not wanting people to infringe upon copyright challenge that statement?

Re:How about Kindergarten? (0)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 4 months ago | (#47194163)

I didn't take it. They still have all of it they ever had.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (0)

gnupun (752725) | about 4 months ago | (#47194805)

So it's okay to carjack a car as long as you return it the same condition it was taken, and fill gas to the level it was before the carjacking?

Is it also okay to watch a movie in the theater without paying for tickets, because according to you, nothing was lost by the theater when you watched their movie for free?

Re:How about Kindergarten? (3, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47194875)

If you can make an exact duplicate of my car and drive it away, leaving my car behind, the only thing I'm going to ask is that you burn your duplicate copy of the registration and insurance info, and get your own plates, at your earliest convenience. Why should I care that you have an exact copy of my car? Your analogy, the carjacking, is nothing like copying. First of all, there's the threat of violence. Then there's the time between when you take it and when you return it that I don't have it.

So if you want to fallaciously argue by analogy, at least use a better analogy.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (3, Funny)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47194881)

Oh, and please don't copy the car while I'm in it. That could get confusing, and my duplicate self will probably be just as attached to the duplicate car as I am to the original.

Re:How about Kindergarten? (1)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47194853)

What does it mean for a thing to be yours?

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194059)

As if there are only a handful of people who don't care about intellectual property. Millions would happily do copyright infringement if there were no adverse consequences.

Millions happily do copyright infringement.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#47194215)

Millions of people would be happy to commit murder, rape, theft, and other crimes if there were no consequences.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#47194281)

If there were no consequences, they wouldn't be murder, rape, and theft. The aforementioned are all wrong because of the consequences. If you could murder someone without anyone being harmed, it shouldn't be a criminal offense. That's why murder within video games is not a crime.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#47194557)

Actually, they're all wrong because any set of individuals with no cultural background (i.e. no existing morals, ethics, etc.) living in a world where these things may happen to them would feel threatened. Societies always provide protections against these threats: as they form, they group together to protect their members, which quickly becomes the unstructured hunting and killing of threat sources (i.e. kill people or other tribes who kill your clansmen), and eventually laws and police forces and governments.

Other morals and ethics--for example, sexual laws about adultery (we used to stone people to death...) or sex with 14 year olds (this used to be marriage age, and 20-25 year old men would marry 13-14 year old girls and get them pregnant)--evolve culturally. They are not inherent, but not completely baseless: the evolution of our economy has made it harmful for girls to get married or have children at that age, hence the sex thing (as we've considered sex and contraception immoral for cultural reasons, i.e. religion, and so have long associated sex with children).

Consequences are relative. Another person dying is not a consequence unless it particularly affects you: people in California die all the time due to earthquakes, and I don't go offering to let Californians stay in my basement so they won't be crushed by collapsing highways. Killing a person with your bare hands has zero consequences if it doesn't bother you, doesn't affect your future prospects, and doesn't garner retaliation from society.

Most people don't think globally; those of us who do are working by numbers, not by individuals. Nobody has a fully-resolved cause-and-effect engine in his head.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (1)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47194759)

Actually, for most rapes, there are no consequences - the rates of reporting of rape are very low, and the rate of conviction on reported rapes is extremely low. And as a consequence, rape is extremely common. About 30% are raped at least once during their lives, and in anonymous surveys of men asking what sexual activities they've done (some of which are rape), about 10% of young men confess to having raped at least once and about 3% confess to serial rape.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194009)

Yup. I hope Kimble rots in jail. He is no freedom fighter, he's just a pirate who wants to keep on making money from piracy.

Re:How about a Kickstarter... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47194121)

And why does he need to be extradited in the first place? The poor kiwis don't have any courts of their own?

War has been delcared (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47193973)

and I won't be surprised when A LOT of dirt is dug up about the legal system.

You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cell (2, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 4 months ago | (#47193989)

Snowden did it to keep his oath and he's still getting prosecuted. Anyone doing it for money would have no leg to stand on in the view of the people who would go after them. Corruption in the US judiciary system is a very real problem and people who expose it are heroes but this reward is the worst possible way to get people to come forward.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47194021)

Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.

He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too ... right?

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47194057)

If simply being an asshole was just cause to terminate your civil rights, we'd all be behind bars.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47194153)

... Do you know absolutely ANYTHING about kim dot com? If he were JUST an asshole, I'd agree with you.

Let me guess, you know nothing about his history and you think megaupload was a legitimate file sharing site?

Being an asshole is one of his better traits.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194177)

The fact is, the fools screwed up in court numerous times and violated people's rights in an attempt to get evidence. Anything they collected in such ways should be null and void.

But you seem to support such thuggery. That's not a surprise, given that you're a prominent troll when it comes to copyright-related issues. You can't resist siding with authoritarians when it comes to copyright, and you even use their propaganda terms and inflammatory language when speaking about it.

You're not someone who can be taken seriously.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (4, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 months ago | (#47194397)

For anyone who doesn't know, Kim Schmitz aka Kimble aka Kim Dotcom has a history of electronic theft, theft of trade secrets, insider trading, fraud, and has narrowly avoided prison in Germany a handful of times. He's was doing it before his "career" took off, hacking into banks from as early as 1995.

Go look into Kimvestor, a shoddy investment firm, and Data Protect. He made his "fortune" selling the latter off at the peak of the dot com bubble. Later he straight up pump-and-dump'd Letsbuyit.com, netting over â1.5m in profit.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194647)

What is your point? That he was guilty then, so whatever charges the government brings against him now are valid, and no matter how much the government violates standard procedures and illegally obtains evidence, it should be ignored?

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194927)

For anyone who doesn't know... Kim Dotcom [is a massive asshat]

Sure, he is. What's truly incredible is that a piece of lowlife scum such as that can come out looking like the good guy. He's small-time scum, but he's being pursued heavily buy much worse, scummier big-time scum.

He might be bad, but the people pursuing him are much worse. The fact that they're doing it using your taxes and claims of legality makes it vastly worse still.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (0)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 4 months ago | (#47194469)

Are you the kind of asshole who runs around your neighborhood and rats out all your neighbors who don't mow often enough? Maybe you ought to add listening for loud music to your activities, so you can file a noise complaint too, and try to identify the songs while you're at it so you can go running to your pals in the MAFIAA to complain that because you overheard a copyrighted song, their rights were infringed. Even better if you have to trespass to get close enough to identify the songs.

File sharing IS a legitimate activity. In many cases the user doesn't know the copyright status. Shouldn't have to know. But even if it is copyrighted by someone else, and the user knows that and does not have their permission, so what? Last I heard, you can still trade books among your friends, and check out works from the public library. If this activity is illegal, that is reason to change the law, not blow the public's money on futile and damaging policing efforts. Copyright law is against the public interest, and needs drastic reform or abolishment.

Not having to do or help with policing is a basic right. The 4th Amendment has a bit to say on the subject of searches. The police can't just search your home, they have to have probable cause and a warrant. Equally, you shouldn't have to search your own home. The 3rd Amendment might even be applicable. You can't be forced to house a soldier in your home. Seems like you shouldn't have to allow a digital cop program on your servers either. A business based on file storage should not have to bear the burden of checking the copyright status of all the files stored on its servers. Cloud vendors don't have to do that, why should Megaupload?

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47194099)

Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.

He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too ... right?

If I had to choose between a sleazy fraudster going to jail, and the uncovering (and correction) of government corruption, I'd choose the latter. Government corruption, at least in this particular case, is far scarier to me.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47194167)

Why do you have to pick one or the other?

He's guilty, everyone knows it, why would you willingly let him go? Why not take out both of the criminals instead of exchanging one for the other?

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#47194229)

Because our justice system is based upon the notion of due process. We've let murderers go because cops bungled far smaller things.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194721)

obama just willingly let 5 criminals go free of charge so....

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194755)

Why do you have to pick one or the other?

He's guilty, everyone knows it...

This type of mentality needs to stop.

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (2)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47194851)

All these people complaiing about how "horribly corrupt" the US government are are just playing a huge round of "First World Problems". The US is #19 [transparency.org] on the Transparency International list. That's not superb, but it's out of 177 countries... I mean, for crying out loud, Yanukovych in Ukraine had a personal zoo at his house - tens of billions of dolllars stolen from a country whose per-capita income is less than that of Mongolia's. And that sort of stuff is hardly unusual in the world. Have any of you complaining about evil "US corruption" ever lived in a country with *real* corruption, at all levels?

#FirstWorldProblems

Re:You can't enjoy five million dollars from a cel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194461)

Expose the corruption, donate the money to the EFF or one of the legal aid charities.

Cartels (5, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | about 4 months ago | (#47194011)

What about the film industry creating a cartel and using laws to enforce it, stuff like region coding DVD's and BluRay's, encryption, or adding unskippable bs like copyright notices on LEGIT bought products. The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product, but corrupt governments side on the media cartels who refuse to update their business models to the current real world - they are stuck in the last century.

The law has been bought and paid for by the corrupt media cartels. The law is a disgrace, as are our bought corrupt politicians.

Re:Cartels (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194061)

The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product

"Giving consumers a better product" would be going out and making their own movies that are better than Hollywood's. No laws against that anywhere. It's also not what they're doing. What they're doing would be more akin to me walking into your place of work and offering to do the work you did for the past month, for $50. You've already done the work, you just don't get paid, and I get $50. That's just giving your employer a better product, right? These tired old excuses for piracy are, ironically, from the last century, and I didn't realize people still talked like this in 2014.

Re:Cartels (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about 4 months ago | (#47194123)

"Giving consumers a better product" would be going out and making their own movies that are better than Hollywood's. No laws against that anywhere. It's also not what they're doing.

Because it's actually a free market, and if you COULD produce a better product, you'd totally be able to displace Hollywood films in getting into theatres. Right? Right?


Please

Re:Cartels (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 4 months ago | (#47194399)

I thought theaters were part of the outdated business model that everybody suggests 'Hollywood' should change?

People have a great many options for self-publishing online. And quite a few people do. Just how much that has displaced consumption of Hollywood fare (legal or otherwise, and whether that's based on it being a better product or out of principle) is a different question.

Re:Cartels (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 4 months ago | (#47194847)

No I imagine that getting a movie into a theater is probably harder than getting your music onto a commercial radio station. Most commercial radio stations don't play music from bands that are not signed to a label unless they are promoting a local show {ie. you payed them for advertising}

The idea that the internet has a made it possible for an artist to make it in music without a label is a farce. My brother plays in a successful local band and I listen to a lot of unsigned bands that have spent the money to record their own music. If you search through various music sites you'll find there is what appears to be an unending supply of bands that range from terrible to amazing that just aren't signed to label and are not making money {not enough to quit their day jobs}.

As far as Kim Dotcom I find it disturbing that he is not aloud to see the evidence against him in order to mount a defense.

Re:Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194199)

What they're doing would be more akin to me walking into your place of work and offering to do the work you did for the past month, for $50. You've already done the work, you just don't get paid, and I get $50. That's just giving your employer a better product, right? These tired old excuses for piracy are, ironically, from the last century, and I didn't realize people still talked like this in 2014.

No, it's like me putting deliberate and obvious bugs into my code (with comments saying "this is a deliberate bug") and then you coming along and deleting the bugs and taking $50 for my last month's work. You produce a better product, but only by standing on the shoulders of irritating giants.

Re:Cartels (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194503)

Then you should stop putting deliberate bugs into your code. Why should I buy it from you when I can get a bug free version cheaper?

And please, don't come with legality. There's no logic in laws concerning sex, drugs and copyright, basing an argument on that is like arguing on religious grounds.

Re:Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194235)

"Giving consumers a better product" would be going out and making their own movies that are better than Hollywood's.

They copy a product and then modify it or make it easier to get, usually. I'd say they are offering a better service/product in most cases. DRM is removed, unskippable messages and movie advertisements are removed, etc.

What they're doing would be more akin to me walking into your place of work and offering to do the work you did for the past month, for $50. You've already done the work, you just don't get paid, and I get $50.

The problem with that scenario is that the people who made the product took on the burden of their own volition. That would be fine, except for the fact that any acts of copyright infringement will never change the amount of time or money they spent making the product, something they chose to do themselves. The copyright infringers do not cause the companies to waste any additional time or money, and nor does their money belong to the companies.

The real problem with such examples is that they're going to be fundamentally different from actual copyright infringement, where people make copies of things with their own equipment and send it to others.

Re:Cartels (4, Interesting)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 4 months ago | (#47194245)

The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product

"Giving consumers a better product" would be going out and making their own movies that are better than Hollywood's. No laws against that anywhere. It's also not what they're doing. What they're doing would be more akin to me walking into your place of work and offering to do the work you did for the past month, for $50. You've already done the work, you just don't get paid, and I get $50. That's just giving your employer a better product, right? These tired old excuses for piracy are, ironically, from the last century, and I didn't realize people still talked like this in 2014.

To stretch your analogy:
Well, except that, if my employer wanted a copy of the work I've done for the last month, which, BTW, I was already paid for, I wouldn't expect him to pay me my full salary to have it done all over again. Not when he can, and does, have the minimum wage secretary make a Xerox for nothing more than the cost of her time, a little electricity, ink, and paper.

Just because the industry wants to exploit their rape of popular culture [techdirt.com] and turn every thought or utterance [billboard.com] into a money stream for themselves, and has the money and position to get the elected officials to pass laws that are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the electorate that voted them into office, doesn't make it right.

Re:Cartels (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 4 months ago | (#47194785)

To stretch your analogy:
It's not your employer who wants the copy. It's another company entirely. Your employer passes on the copy. The other company is happy, because they just got a month's worth of work for nothing. Your employer doesn't much care, at first. Sure, they got what they paid for, but then they start thinking that maybe next month they'll get a copy off some other company for nothing, and not need to pay you anything.

And you; well you're just screwed. Two companies are making money from the fruits of your labour, one without paying you a penny, and the another is planning on laying you off. I guess that serves you right for having an "obsolete business model".

Re:Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194349)

What has this got to do with being called a thief in the first of many unskippable ads, the following ones of which will be for a bunch of films you don't want to see ?

Re:Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194081)

The law has been bought and paid for by the corrupt media cartels.
 
Yeah and the product in question was also created by these "cartels."
 
Don't like it? Feel free to create your own DRM free content and let everyone have the fruits of your labor. Nothing is stopping you but you and your selfish entitle ideology.

Re:Cartels (2)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 4 months ago | (#47194307)

Yeah and the product in question was also created by these "cartels."

So, are you saying it is okay for these companies to bribe legislators to create draconian laws?

Don't like it? Feel free to create your own DRM free content and let everyone have the fruits of your labor. Nothing is stopping you but you and your selfish entitle ideology.

I'd say it's significantly more selfish and entitled to hinder the free market, free speech rights, and private property rights by telling people they can't copy & transmit certain information to others with their own equipment.

For all the screaming and crying that happens, you accomplish a whole lot of nothing. You've effectively lost this battle already, because you have no effective means of actually stopping people from transmitting the information. And even if you did have some draconian solution, it would just cause people to despise you.

Re:Cartels (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194425)

Oh, is that what the problem is. Well, dude, I've got a bit of a shock for you: I work for one of those cartels, and it isn't so cut-and-dried.

Know what they do?

They steal from their employees. They steal money from the public (I like the notice in their public funding that claims "We don't fund general operations of the broadcaster" particularly, because when they steal wages from staff, they're redirecting money to general operations). The CEO steals everything and anything he can, anything that's not nailed down. He also breaks the law on a fairly regular basis, and breaches any worker's rights that he can, any given day of the week, because he has that power. If we don't like it, we can go to the Department of Labor, and never work in this town again, or we can quit.

Don't think he works too hard for his money, either, and don't think he has a lot of responsibility, because I've seen what happens when he fucks up: someone else becomes the scape goat, but when something's a success it was his baby.

You want to moan about someone's entitlement ideology, you start at the top, with the people who are actually stealing from others just to further their own selfish interests, not people who are duplicating some some bytes.

Re:Cartels (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47194135)

Your argument about a better product is pretty poor. You seem to be saying that it's worth violating the laws of a democracy merely in order to get better-packaged video entertainment. I don't see how a democracy can function well if people are willing to so casually disregard laws they don't support.

Your argument about a corrupt legislative process is much more interesting, though. It calls into question whether or not we're really a democracy, and thus whether or not obeying the laws per se should carry any moral or ethical weight.

Re:Cartels (3, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#47194225)

A democracy *can't* function that way. The laws aren't supported by the people; they're put there when 98% of the population has no idea what they are, what they mean, what they do, or that those things are actually wrong in some way.

Re:Cartels (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194575)

Laws MUST be supported by the general population if they are supposed to be upheld. Laws OPPOSED by the majority of people are actually a threat to the legal system itself.

If there is laws that most people oppose (like, say, a lot of laws in former communist states), they will break it, or at the very least, they will not report it if they know someone else breaks it. Be honest: Imagine your best friend kills someone in cold blood, would you tell on him? I'd say the chance that you do is at the very least a LOT higher than you ratting him out for downloading some blockbuster movie. Why? Because your support for the law against murder is (at least if you're a somewhat normal human being) a lot stronger than your support for copyright. If the latter exists at all.

Copyright is a law that is enforced by and for a minority. While at the same time opposed or ignored by a majority. The danger here is now that this not only means that copyright becomes a hollow shell of a law, it means that laws are questioned entirely. Allow me an example.

I remember an experiment where a "no littering" sign was put up prominently on a corner of the street. And no littering happened. The place was clean. Then, after a week IIRC, they dumped some litter on the spot and it didn't take long for the litter to grow and multiply. When people see a law being ignored with impunity, they will follow suit.

The problematic thing here is that copyright is one thing. What's next? When you can break copyright laws, why not other laws? We identify copyright laws as unjust and wrong, so what about the others? Are the other laws right? Or should we take them into question as well? Why not break other laws? Once you broke one, breaking another one gets a lot easier.

Re:Cartels (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#47194665)

Laws MUST be supported by the general population if they are supposed to be upheld. Laws OPPOSED by the majority of people are actually a threat to the legal system itself.

I feel I must pick a nit here. Laws which people will not follow are a threat to the concept of "the law" itself, but these laws are only a threat to a legal system which seeks to act honorably, and in the best interest of The People.

Re:Cartels (1)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 4 months ago | (#47194261)

I don't see how a democracy can function well if people are willing to so casually disregard laws they don't support.

People break the law all the time when it comes to copyright, drugs, and other such simple things. Yet, somehow we're not falling apart. Could it be because violating laws you believe are unjust doesn't mean you'll violate every law in existence, or the tendency of some people to do such things does not mean everyone will? It's usually minor laws where you're unlikely to be caught that get broken. Instincts and such keep people from wanting to go around murdering everyone, so that's not going to be a problem.

Rest assured, we won't fall apart just because people break unjust laws, even if the definition of "unjust" is ambiguous. History has proven this.

Re:Cartels (3, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 4 months ago | (#47194645)

If a law is so easy to casually disregard, and violating it provides a clear benefit to the violators and the harm it causes is theoretical, that's a sign the law itself is bad. Eating at Burger King should not be thought such a harm to McDonalds that it should be outlawed.

We ought to have digital public libraries by now. Such a thing is a clear benefit to society. Searchable works of art! No more archaic card catalogs. No more denying a patron because all the copies are currently checked out. No more losses from patrons being careless with the physical media and damaging it. Far less storage space needed, space which can be used to hold more works, or repurposed. No more late fees and returns. No more having to physically travel to the library, twice, spending time and most likely gas. Did you see the article some days ago about streaming saving society lots of money compared to fooling around with DVDs? We could have all of this, now, if not for copyright law.

Everyone should be willing to practice civil disobedience of bad laws. Be like Rosa Parks and don't meekly go along with racist seating arrangements. If US citizens are no longer willing to do that, maybe we ought to petition the British Monarchy to let us back in the fold, and we'll all issue a national apology to George III.

Re:Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194765)

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." [Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail,"]

Re:Cartels (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#47194147)

+5 insightful?

Why, you sound like you know exactly what you're talking about. Why don't you just go pick up your $5,000,000 cheque?

Oh right, because you're just talking out your ass.

Re:Cartels (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 4 months ago | (#47194193)

What about the film industry creating a cartel and using laws to enforce it, stuff like region coding DVD's and BluRay's, encryption, or adding unskippable bs like copyright notices on LEGIT bought products.

It's their product and they can sell it under any circumstances they want. Don't like DRM? Don't buy it, but don't use DRM as an excuse to pirate something. Or, buy it and use one of the many products that will rip a copy free of DRM and the notices.

The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product, but corrupt governments side on the media cartels who refuse to update their business models to the current real world - they are stuck in the last century.

No, pirates are simply giving people an excuse to get stuff for free. You argument is akin to saying "I don't like GPL terms so I will go ahead and take the source and do whatever I want with it and distribute it without providing the source code; the desires of the original creators be damned since I have a LEGIT copy. The GPL business model is so last century; this is 2014 where people make obey off of code.

As for business models, I can get a movie on BR, DVD and iTunes in one package; giving me the ability to view it how and when I want. I am not a fan of DRM and would like

Here's a thought. If the studios said "We know many people pirate our materials. So, we've setup a fund where you can make a donation of XX$ for each copy you pirated. You can do it anonymously so we will not know who contributed so there is no range rod us going after you. You'll get a receipt, if you want, so if we do prosecute you as a result of another action you have proof to avoid a lawsuit." How much money form people who simply want "a better ported product" will actually pay for it?

Re:Cartels (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194599)

I know at least one person who would love to buy a lot of UBIsoft games if they only offered them in a way I can agree with.

I am actually honestly sad that I will never play some of their more recent games. They sound quite good.

Re:Cartels (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47194201)

The 'pirates' are giving people SOMEONE ELSES WORK, not their own. They didn't create the product, they stole it, and then 'made it better'.

Just because you don't like the product as sold doesn't mean you (or they, the pirates) have any right to change it as you see fit.

Its not yours to change. How about I come change your home around, how about I come install FreeBSD on your computer because I think its better? Do I get to decide that you need to update the business model by which you rent me your home and other possessions such as your loved ones?

I don't approve of the way you don't let me skip straight to having sex with your wife, so I should be able to change it to my whim regardless of what you or her want, right? Thats what you're saying, because some cartel of people got together and made it illegal for other people to do what they want with women.

Welcome to reality, you don't get to make the rules and if you don't like them you need to do something about it, just breaking them isn't the answer. Learn to work within the government. It is possible if you get off your ass and do something. You just use excuses to take the easy way out.

Re:Cartels (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#47194525)

I believe it is you that needs a welcome to reality, where abstractions are not comparable to objects that physically exist. If we lived in a world where physical goods somehow became non-rival, property as we know it probably would and should cease to exist.

Re:Cartels (1)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 4 months ago | (#47194529)

Just because you don't like the product as sold doesn't mean you (or they, the pirates) have any right to change it as you see fit.

Does this mean I'm not allowed to repaint my car either?

Re:Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194361)

I don't mind copyright notices. I get pissed when I buy a Blu Ray and I am forced to watch a commercial for an upcoming movie every time I put it into my player. Stop putting crap into Blu Rays and just take me to the main menu damn it.

Re:Cartels (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194619)

What's worst about it is that the "upcoming" movie will have been out for ages if you pick up that BluRay later again.

And it can really, really put a stain on your enjoyment if you have to watch your favorite actor (that you're about to see in the movie should it ever start) in a movie that you know stunk to high heavens just 'cause they decided to put a trailer for it before a movie where he was great.

Cartels (4, Informative)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 4 months ago | (#47194751)

That's really only true in the United States and somewhat less so in Europe. In most of the rest of the world they don't really give a damn about copyright, at least in practice. Oh sure, foreign governments will sign the copyright conventions or promise to enforce local laws, but in practice they turn a blind eye.

First, film and music piracy is largely considered to be an American problem and it's hard to get people to care much about rich foreigners being less rich (and all Americans are rich by their standards). Second, in Mexico, Brazil and other South or Latin American countries, media piracy is looked upon with about the same seriousness as jaywalking if it's looked upon as a crime at all, which it's often not. The police down there largely couldn't care less and they look the other way in return for modest bribes. Third, in societies such as Mexico and Brazil, which are very unequal in terms of wealth and income, pirated or knock off goods are the only way that most people have any access to consumer items. Without pirated media and knock off goods, they largely wouldn't be able to afford any foreign things like DVDs, name brand fashions, music, video games and the like.

Lastly, the copyright business in Mexico especially is frequently under the control of the cartels (the drug cartels not the American media cartels). The two biggest are Los Zetas [wikipedia.org] (who based their logo on the title card of The Godfather) and La Familia Michoacana [wikipedia.org] . The pirated DVD business doesn't bring in as much scratch as drugs, but it does provide walking around money to pay cartel foot soldiers and helps the cartels maintain presence and better control territories in Mexico. Of course, it goes without saying that they're not very concerned about copyright laws being that they torture and kill as a matter of doing business. The Mexican government itself already doesn't have a large enough budget for their own internal needs, never mind enforcing foreign copyrights. So you see, copyright is essentially de-facto meaningless outside the United States and Europe.

Uber-gamer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194047)

Not sure where this comes from. This guy was just a Romkidz crook.

Re:Uber-gamer? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194637)

This guy was never actually anything he claimed to be. The only thing he was (and is) really great at is self-portrayal. He's great at self marketing. But that's about it.

Maybe that's why I can't stand him. He actually accomplished NOTHING. Except duping others into buying his show.

Why did he never try to get into politics?

Burn in hell Kimble (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194073)

Kimble ist ein schwul. Tod dem schwein.

pirate Jean LaFitte (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194107)

Reminds me of pirate Jean LaFitte.

When the Louisiana governer put a bounty of $500 for LaFitte's head, LaFitte put a bounty of $5,000 on the governor's ear.

Actually that is the hollywood version.

The governor put a bounty of $750 for LaFitte's head and LaFitte doubled it for the governor's head. I like the Hollywood version better.

Beware of people who change their names (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194115)

Before you cheer on somebody like Kim Dotcom:

Kim Dotcom was born Kim Schmitz and has also called himself Kimble, King Kimble the First, Ruler of the Kimpire and Kim Tim Jim Vestor. Kim Schmitz has been convicted of insider trading during the Dotcom boom for his involvement with a struggling German company (through his company "Kimvestor AG"). While he lived in Hong Kong, he started a business ("Trendax") which was supposed to achieve guaranteed gains in stock trading by using artificial intelligence. In Germany however, the country where he was born and gained notoriety, he's mostly famous for ratting out his partners in crime [forbes.com] to the lawyer Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth. Gravenreuth is a name-changer as well: He was born Günter Werner Dörr and later changed his surname to that of his mother. His claim to fame is his business of writing cease and desist letters, mostly regarding copyright and trademark violations. He posed as a teenage girl and solicited game swap partners: When teenage boys offered to trade games, he sent a cease and desist letter. Gravenreuth himself has been convicted for forgery. When he was later also convicted of fraud and had to go to jail (he had wrongfully claimed that he hadn't received a payment and used that to try and seize the domain name of a major German newspaper), he killed himself.

Re:Beware of people who change their names (1)

Gaspard de Coligny (3639401) | about 4 months ago | (#47194221)

0/10... You don't even try to be relevant...

with 5 million bucks (3, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 months ago | (#47194125)

buy a nice boat an disappear and dont forget plenty of fishing gear and a shortwave radio-receiver, go find some abandoned Polynesian island with a fresh water source and just retire and forget modern civilization

Re:with 5 million bucks (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#47194161)

Polynesian island with a fresh water source

If one exists, the Polynesians themselves would be very interested in hearing about this island...

Re:with 5 million bucks (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 months ago | (#47194171)

no fresh water source>? then bring a distiller or material to build a distiller and make fresh water from seawater, with 5 million bucks you can buy a lot of hardware

Re:with 5 million bucks (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47194437)

I think I saw a professor build one with coconuts somewhere.

Re:with 5 million bucks (1)

stiggle (649614) | about 4 months ago | (#47194493)

But this time you'll have Thurstons money to buy proper parts.

Corruption.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194165)

.....is well understood and accounted for. It is a useful tool for all governments and corporations.

I am not sure where this idea came about that once upon a time, all people where honest and played by the rules. The only ones who actually play by the rules are the majority of the poor and middle class (aka not as poor as the bottom class), and mostly due to the threat of the gun (for those smart enough to figure out what is going on) or willful ignorance (for those either too fumb to figure it out or too busy trying to survive).

You know what people who are corruption resistant called? Idealists.....they generally have a very short life expectancy than the rest of us if ever they come to power.

Re: Corruption.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194703)

What about the idealists who will do whatever it takes to bring you to justice, laws or procedures be damned. That is still corrupt in my book, even if they aren't on the take.

Why doesn't he leave (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#47194175)

Why doesn't he just go to some other country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA

EG North Korea, he'd fit right in with all the other Kim's there

ROFL.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194179)

Kim DotTard....proving why he's a Tard...

Given his record... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194449)

...I wouldn't count on him actually planning to pay a cent.

slashvertisement (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#47194933)

Internet mega-entrepreneur, uber-gamer and now NZ political corruption-buster Kim DotCom

Which PR agency do you work for that Kimble has contracted to polish up his image?

When will the /. crowd understand that the guy is mostly a career criminal and he's the exact kind of person who will feed you to the sharks if he's your boss? His goal in life is winning and living large, and he doesn't give a fuck about politics, inventions, freedom, Internet or any of the other tools he uses to accomplish his goals.

Suckers, all of you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?