Video footage reveals armed raid on MegaUpload founder's home

[Chris Just]

As far as I see he broke no law he owns a legitimate server company that allows others to upload files legal or not! It is the people that made the copy's and shared them that broke the law not him. when 100,000s of files are uploaded each day there is no way to make sure there legitimate or not would take more man power then they could ever afford.

 

[hitech0101]

Is this a way of sending a message to other pirates ?

 

[gwailo247]

As far as I see he broke no law he owns a legitimate server company that allows others to upload files legal or not! It is the people that made the copy's and shared them that broke the law not him. when 100,000s of files are uploaded each day there is no way to make sure there legitimate or not would take more man power then they could ever afford.

Here you go, read away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_Legal_Case

 

[Chris Just]

Wikipedia where anyone can write and change things as they see it? No thank you!

 

[Chris Just]

Go check out the Criminal defence action area on on the link you just sent it is EZ to say what you want there as long as it is true or what you perceive to be true.

 

[gwailo247]

Go check out the Criminal defence action area on on the link you just sent it is EZ to say what you want there as long as it is true or what you perceive to be true.

You really don't read too good do you?

All I did was explain why the US took him down. If you're too dense to see the difference between explaining what legal basis the US used, and me agreeing with it, then go to 4chan and ***** about it there.

 

[Chris Just]

"Here you go, read away," is what you said! You did not explain anything.

 

[gwailo247]

"Here you go, read away," is what you said! You did not explain anything.

Yeah read away. Form your own opinion based on the evidence. You keep insisting that what the he did was not illegal. I pointed you to a source which explains the US government's position. You also got to read the other side of the story, why what he did was not illegal.

Now you're informed.

Like I keep repeating, I'm not judging him for his actions inherently.

The only opinion I interjected into my explanation, using the contrasting examples of Carlo Gambino and John Gotti, was that the US government tends to go after people who stick out more. One thing they love to do is take down people who think they're above the law. The law that they promulgate and interpret. That's why when the US government actually decides to take notice of you and basically tell you that you are now their enemy, you shouldn't take that threat lightly because they will go to a very liberal country like NZ, where Dotcom obviously felt he was safe, and flex their power. This was as much as show of force as anything.

Again, I don't agree or disagree with what the US gov't did, just explaining their motivations. Just like I can explain the motivations of the Black Panthers or the KKK without being the member of either group.

My opinion of him is that he should have kept a lower profile and he probably wouldn't have been taken down in such a fashion. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[Leeky]

Let's tone it down a little please. People are entitled to give an opinion without being insulted for doing so. Any more personal flaming or insults and I'll start removing posts.

 

[amstech]

Its simple, there are people who think that laws don't apply to them. And there are those who like to thumb their noses at authority. And then there are those who do both.
.

And there are people that don't agree with the laws and use action, not words, to show thier displeasure.

 

[Tygerstrike]

Ok lets try and clear this up for the more dense posters out there. Yes DotCom is accussed of copyright infringment. But its the very same media that is being bashed thats reporting that, that is all he is being arrested for. Did everyone miss the embezzelment that DotCom did? Did everyone miss out on how although he may have not uploaded the files, he did facilitate a services that allowed other ppl to break the Law. Which makes him just as guilty. I can give a example.
Person 1 wants crack
person 2 sells crack
person 3 moves crack from person 2 to person 1.
Easy right? He is just as guilty as both the ppl who downloaded copyrighted material to his site and from his site. He created a service that allowed others to break the Law. You may not agree with what the NZ and US govt is doing, but he brought it on himself. Im 1000% sure that MegaUploads lawyers told him all this before he was ever arrested. So none of this should be a shock to him.

 

[Guest]

even if he did dodge taxes or did money laundering, thats freaken excessive! that many cops just to arrest a fat guy like him? poor docom!

 

[9Nails]

That was a very excessive show of force, especially since their main concern was that he would delete the evidence that they already took?

 

[9Nails]

As far as I see he broke no law...

I feel the same way... I think the "law" is punishing the wrong people. "Making Available" is nonsense. I think that the Media corps need to prove that the file was taken in a way that reduced their profits. I.E. Show that the person who downloaded the file had the means and the want to pay for the files but for other reasons chose not to. These big Media corporations sponsored the "laws" that are being enforced. I think that is ridiculous that courts are asked to find if a business (as shady as MegaUpload is) is responsible for sharing files when the users of those files are the criminals.

Why don't they go after the real criminals? RIAA tried that and spent $18M to return $0.4M, from citizens like you, who use files that they download without license to use. It's simply not as profitable. So big Media corps sponsored the US Senators whom wrote these laws designed to make bigger fish for them to catch.

 

[Guest]

Not paying money were money is wanted, is enough to make a criminal out of an honest person.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, when are the rest who are being screwed out of our money going to fight back?

 

[bexwhitt]

One thing for sure Kim Dotcom has a serious lack of taste

 

[Guest]

@Gwailo, I don't think you are actually explaining anything.

You express your personal opinion forcefully, but with a complete lack of substantiating evidence to support your opinions, and speak in a patronizing, if not downright disrespectful fashion to your audience.

The assumptions regarding your own technical skill level and grasp of the situation are kind of funny, and unjustified.

I'd recommend that you research "critical thinking", followed by "logical fallacy".

Here, let me Google that for you:

http://goo.gl/INIQG

http://goo.gl/8ZDHv

I fail to see any correlation between his lifestyle and the legality of his hosting service. I see no evidence that his flashy lifestyle determined whether the US Government was going to arrest him or not.

It's possible that his lifestyle contributed to the severity of the raid, but I doubt it.

The Feds went after him because the RIAA and the MPIAA asked them to, and they wanted to make an example of him because his service was the most prominent.

The Feds have a history of making an example out of the top dog in a particular scene when sufficiently well-heeled corporations ask them to, regardless how extravagant that individual's lifestyle is.

They run somebody up the flag pole, because it discourages everyone else involved in that scene, and it's satisfying to the special interests that are demanding the arrest.

Witness the take down of D.o.D. The members weren't living an extravagent lifestyle - they didn't profit from those activities at all. It didn't make a difference at all.

They could have chosen a more unethical group, that actually made money from the scene, or knowingly distributed files infected with viruses or malware, but they didn't. They targeted a largely inactive group simply because of how famous, prominent, and well-regarded they were.

Witness the sentencing of Kevin Mitnick - was he profiting from his activities, or causing real and substantial harm to Sun or Oracle? No, he was simply legendary at the time and a powerful corporation asked them to make an example of him. They concocted a ridiculous damage estimate for his crime, and it was upheld with little challenge.

Dirtbags involved in trading credit cards will not be subject to the same degree of severity unless credit card companies pressure the Feds to make an example out of them.

 

[Guest]

@Gwailo -

Another point I'd like to make is that I didn't see anyone attacking you or being disrespectful or "yelling" (via text? on a webpage? really?) at you, but I did witness you being disrespectful on multiple occasions.

It would seem that you feel rather passionate about upholding the rule of law, and that's fine I guess.

I also understood that you are explaining the situation to us (as if we need assistance with basic reasoning, and as if you are qualified or possessed of the mental resources to do so), and personally I'm pretty irked by your less than adult conversational style.

And with that I'm dropping the issue.

 

[Guest]

Well, OK...one last point ;-)

I'm not condoning illegal activity. Regardless of the fairness of the current laws, which have largely rendered the DMCA irrelevant, as well as destroyed Fair Use, if something is illegal, it's illegal.

Does that mean that a defenseless computer geek needs to have paratroopers armed with assault rifles punching his unresistant face?

Couldn't the officers just knocked on his door?

It was a media stunt. Grand standing for the benefit of corporations.

This kind of macho overkill for the benefit of corporate interests is getting pretty tiring.

Legislation at the expense of our civil liberties for the benefit of corporate interests is getting pretty tiring.

 

[Doctor John]

@Gwailo, I don't think you are actually explaining anything.

I think Gwailo was hoping the information in the linked articles would be self-explanatory, on the assumption that they would be read & understood.