Kim Dotcom Talks About How Obama Conspired With Hollywood to Take Down Megaupload

Quote:

---

In Dotcom's telling of the story, his travails began when the Motion Picture Association of America hired the veteran former senator Chris Dodd, who used his sway over his longtime ally the vice-president, Joe Biden, to encourage a move on Megaupload. "If you connect all the dots, and you see who the operators are behind all of this, you understand the political scope," he says.

"They had a political agenda, plus they had an upcoming election, and they needed an alternative for Sopa," says Dotcom, in a reference to the ill-fated and draconian Stop Online Piracy Act.

"It would probably have looked very bleak for [Obama] to go to Hollywood and ask them to help him get re-elected when he couldn't make Sopa happen for them. So Megaupload became a plan B."

---

This is a huge story and that was just a snippet:
MORE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ternet-freedom

It's no secret that the anti-piracy lobby is very powerful and likes to grease the palms of corrupt politicians. This was very evident in the Pirate Bay trial.

I don't understand why people treat Kim Dotcom like some sort of hero or freedom fighter.

He isn't.

If you admire him because he's fearless, fine.

If you admire him because he is super rich and lives large, fine.

If you admire him because you loved downloading free movies, music, and software, and megaupload facilitated that for you, fine.

But this guy definitely is guilty of what the US claims -- profiting big time from online piracy.

He can't claim that megaupload was just a file sharing service. It started out that way, but it became mostly about piracy, and they intentionally turned a blind eye to it, and in fact encouraged it.

There is also a ridiculous school of thought that online piracy shouldn't be illegal.

Of course it should. It's stealing content from those that created and distribute it.

I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime in piracy cases. The $250,000 lawsuits that are occasionally slapped against casual downloaders are disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. However, guys like Kim Dotcom made huge fortunes through online piracy, so they can't cry foul when they get in trouble for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't understand why people treat Kim Dotcom like some sort of hero or freedom fighter.

He isn't.

If you admire him because he's fearless, fine.

If you admire him because he is super rich and lives large, fine.

If you admire him because you loved downloading free movies, music, and software, and megaupload facilitated that for you, fine.

But this guy definitely is guilty of what the US claims -- profiting big time from online piracy.

He can't claim that megaupload was just a file sharing service. It started out that way, but it became mostly about piracy, and they intentionally turned a blind eye to it, and in fact encouraged it.

There is also a ridiculous school of thought that online piracy shouldn't be illegal.

Of course it should. It's stealing content from those that created and distribute it.

I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime in piracy cases. The $250,000 lawsuits that are occasionally slapped against casual downloaders are disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. However, guys like Kim Dotcom made huge fortunes through online piracy, so they can't cry foul when they get in trouble for it.

---

All sounds well and good until you talk about the scale of how China does it and they go after the soft target (pun semi intended) in NZ. It's just pathetic. Send SWAT teams into Beijing and get back to me with the guy in NZ after.

Druff with complete common sense. A conservative being reasonable.

4Dragons with a complete lack of sanity and resembling a retard.

I'd trust Druff with a gun. 4Dragons ? lol. Only if we can send him to China on some random mission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied

Druff with complete common sense. A conservative being reasonable.

4Dragons with a complete lack of sanity and resembling a retard.

I'd trust Druff with a gun. 4Dragons ? lol. Only if we can send him to China on some random mission.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm1tArfga5k

OH AND KIM DOTCOM IS GOD.

putlocker is the new megaupload.

Its all good, Kim Dotcom launched mega.co.nz today

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/82...hes-Mega-co-nz

"After a successful site launch early this morning, exactly a year after his arrest on copyright piracy and racketeering charges, Dotcom said it was his goal to list the company on the New Zealand stock exchange.

Early this morning Dotcom tweeted that the site had achieved 250,000 registrations and the servers were overloading but still functional."


And of course, he was giving away tickets to the launch at his mansion Wonka styles the other day that and singing:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...s-delicious-PR

He makes some valid points. How retarded is Hollywood for releasing movies here in the USA only then several months or even a few years later in other countries of the world? They are losing so much money when someone would be wiling to pay to see a film but don't want to wait that long so they go on the internet and download a release of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

He makes some valid points. How retarded is Hollywood for releasing movies here in the USA only then several months or even a few years later in other countries of the world? They are losing so much money when someone would be wiling to pay to see a film but don't want to wait that long so they go on the internet and download a release of it?

---

It isn't really any of his business why Hollywood does things the way it does. It's still stealing. The guy is a piece of shit. He makes his money by stealing other peoples work and basically making a profit by giving it away for free. Fuck him. I hope he gets raped by a big buck n-word and dies of AIDS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

He makes some valid points. How retarded is Hollywood for releasing movies here in the USA only then several months or even a few years later in other countries of the world? They are losing so much money when someone would be wiling to pay to see a film but don't want to wait that long so they go on the internet and download a release of it?

---

It isn't really any of his business why Hollywood does things the way it does. It's still stealing. The guy is a piece of shit. He makes his money by stealing other peoples work and basically making a profit by giving it away for free. Fuck him. I hope he gets raped by a big buck n-word and dies of AIDS.

---

How is he stealing? He is running a hosting service that whenever they get complaints they remove links that violate copyrights. HE DOES NOT UPLOAD COPYRIGHT MATERIAL HIMSELF! This is nothing different then rapidshare or any of the other sites left do now it's just megaupload got so huge and I believe had one operating office in the US that they were the prime target for the DOJ to come after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

It isn't really any of his business why Hollywood does things the way it does. It's still stealing. The guy is a piece of shit. He makes his money by stealing other peoples work and basically making a profit by giving it away for free. Fuck him. I hope he gets raped by a big buck n-word and dies of AIDS.

---

How is he stealing? He is running a hosting service that whenever they get complaints they remove links that violate copyrights.

---

Riiiiight. Come on. You're smarter than that. You honestly think they took copyright complaints seriously? If they cared about copyright, they wouldn't be hosting a file sharing site in the first place. How did this guy make his millions from megaupload? It certainly wasn't by not having copyrighted material. It's impossible to host a filesharing program while still enforcing copyright claims. I knew what he was doing, he knew exactly what he was doing, and so did the government. Now he gets to take his medicine. I have not one fucking ounce of sympathy for this scumbag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

How is he stealing? He is running a hosting service that whenever they get complaints they remove links that violate copyrights.

---

Riiiiight. Come on. You're smarter than that. You honestly think they took copyright complaints seriously? If they cared about copyright, they wouldn't be hosting a file sharing site in the first place. How did this guy make his millions from megaupload? It certainly wasn't by not having copyrighted material. It's impossible to host a filesharing program while still enforcing copyright claims. I knew what he was doing, he knew exactly what he was doing, and so did the government. Now he gets to take his medicine. I have not one fucking ounce of sympathy for this scumbag.

---

They host a file sharing site because they can make money and it's not illegal to do so.

I'm not saying you can avoid copyright material from being hosted on your servers but he personally wasn't uploading the stuff. With any file hosting site it's their responsibility to remove the material when reported. The problem is as soon as they delete a link someone else in the scene/warez industry just reuploads it. I know I've went to links to get a tv show and saw the file was taken down due to violating copyrights and TOS.

If you run a website you go through a hosting service that you can host files on. Lets say you register soupeatingcabbie.com and throw up pirated material on it. It's now up to your hosting service to remove this otherwise they are at fault. Their is no way they can never prevent anyone from uploading something to their servers whether it's on godaddy.com or megaupload.com. People can also rename stuff to s4645df34sewr23cabbie443gsfsdsw.rar and try to disguise the file.

Since the hosting service likely have this persons name in this case they can go after them personally easier BUT in the technology world today people can trace ip's down to someones home so they can find out most anonymous uploaders anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

They host a file sharing site because they can make money and it's not illegal to do so.

I'm not saying you can avoid copyright material from being hosted on your servers but he personally wasn't uploading the stuff. With any file hosting site it's their responsibility to remove the material when reported. The problem is as soon as they delete a link someone else in the scene/warez industry just reuploads it. I know I've went to links to get a tv show and saw the file was taken down due to violating copyrights and TOS.

---

Read the emails in the indictment. They're pretty damning. The entire management team sends around links for Sopranos episodes and albums.

They had a power user affiliate program where you could earn money if files you uploaded got a lot of downloads. It was clear that the only way to earn real money was to upload popular movies, TV shows, and albums. In the emails they discuss giving out extra bounties for screener copies of specific top movies.

The basis of the indictment is a bunch of emails where the management team congratulates themselves on finding a "loophole" in the DMCA. The law says that when a copyright holder notifies the host of a violating file, the host has to delete the file, or make it unavailable to users. In order to save disk space, if multiple users uploaded the exact same file, they would only store it once, but give the users different links to it. Copyright holders would report infringing content by proving the URLs they found on forums or wherever. Megaupload would then disable the one link specified in the takedown request. They thought this complied with "making the file unavailable", when it clearly didn't. They had been informed that the file was illegal content, but still knowingly had other working URLs that provided access to the file.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

All sounds well and good until you talk about the scale of how China does it and they go after the soft target (pun semi intended) in NZ. It's just pathetic. Send SWAT teams into Beijing and get back to me with the guy in NZ after.

---

The FBI had jurisdiction because Megaupload stored 25,000 terabytes of data in Virginia- which was astonishingly stupid. The government of New Zealand happily offered to assist them.

The US can and does lobby China through diplomatic channels to crack down on the rampant piracy there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

They host a file sharing site because they can make money and it's not illegal to do so.

I'm not saying you can avoid copyright material from being hosted on your servers but he personally wasn't uploading the stuff. With any file hosting site it's their responsibility to remove the material when reported. The problem is as soon as they delete a link someone else in the scene/warez industry just reuploads it. I know I've went to links to get a tv show and saw the file was taken down due to violating copyrights and TOS.

---

Read the emails in the indictment. They're pretty damning. The entire management team sends around links for Sopranos episodes and albums.

They had a power user affiliate program where you could earn money if files you uploaded got a lot of downloads. It was clear that the only way to earn real money was to upload popular movies, TV shows, and albums. In the emails they discuss giving out extra bounties for screener copies of specific top movies.

The basis of the indictment is a bunch of emails where the management team congratulates themselves on finding a "loophole" in the DMCA. The law says that when a copyright holder notifies the host of a violating file, the host has to delete the file, or make it unavailable to users. In order to save disk space, if multiple users uploaded the exact same file, they would only store it once, but give the users different links to it. Copyright holders would report infringing content by proving the URLs they found on forums or wherever. Megaupload would then disable the one link specified in the takedown request. They thought this complied with "making the file unavailable", when it clearly didn't. They had been informed that the file was illegal content, but still knowingly had other working URLs that provided access to the file.

---

Well if they management is doing that then clearly that is a problem. I'm not sure but I remember having a few different megaupload links for a file and when one went down the others did too. The software checked files by the actual byte size and time stamp of their creation so if someone renamed files on their server unless they used something different to compress the file to alter the size if the file was named 5 different times it would only store the first file yet when someone went to download it their service was sophisticated enough to name the file whatever the second guy uploaded it and the third,etc...

My biggest issue is the DOJ stepping in because the service got too big only to take out a few heavy hitters and put scare into smaller hosting sites yet many new services to host files have come out since. If they were smart the DOJ could find way better ways to combat internet piracy instead of cherry picking on the big sites.

Now I guess while it's a different case once the DOJ took out the big three poker sites they never came after Merge, Everleaf, Bovada,etc... While I'm a bit happy about that it still just proves how inconsistent they are and that isn't fair to others who were indicted. Of course it's all about the dollar amount to them but all these sites including the small ones were moving around money in what could be considered illegal or violating UIEGA prior to Black Friday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

The US can and does lobby China through diplomatic channels to crack down on the rampant piracy there.

---

http://www.megawatch.co/

I like how it uses the word 'mega', don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

They host a file sharing site because they can make money and it's not illegal to do so.

I'm not saying you can avoid copyright material from being hosted on your servers but he personally wasn't uploading the stuff. With any file hosting site it's their responsibility to remove the material when reported. The problem is as soon as they delete a link someone else in the scene/warez industry just reuploads it. I know I've went to links to get a tv show and saw the file was taken down due to violating copyrights and TOS.

---

Read the emails in the indictment. They're pretty damning. The entire management team sends around links for Sopranos episodes and albums.

They had a power user affiliate program where you could earn money if files you uploaded got a lot of downloads. It was clear that the only way to earn real money was to upload popular movies, TV shows, and albums. In the emails they discuss giving out extra bounties for screener copies of specific top movies.

The basis of the indictment is a bunch of emails where the management team congratulates themselves on finding a "loophole" in the DMCA. The law says that when a copyright holder notifies the host of a violating file, the host has to delete the file, or make it unavailable to users. In order to save disk space, if multiple users uploaded the exact same file, they would only store it once, but give the users different links to it. Copyright holders would report infringing content by proving the URLs they found on forums or wherever. Megaupload would then disable the one link specified in the takedown request. They thought this complied with "making the file unavailable", when it clearly didn't. They had been informed that the file was illegal content, but still knowingly had other working URLs that provided access to the file.

---

Just a question, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. I do agree with you on most topics, but not this one.

Have you ever download movies/ufc/tv shows/music or anything at all?

When Azzclown and Barry agree on something you can pretty much bank that it's correct IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simpdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Read the emails in the indictment. They're pretty damning. The entire management team sends around links for Sopranos episodes and albums.

They had a power user affiliate program where you could earn money if files you uploaded got a lot of downloads. It was clear that the only way to earn real money was to upload popular movies, TV shows, and albums. In the emails they discuss giving out extra bounties for screener copies of specific top movies.

The basis of the indictment is a bunch of emails where the management team congratulates themselves on finding a "loophole" in the DMCA. The law says that when a copyright holder notifies the host of a violating file, the host has to delete the file, or make it unavailable to users. In order to save disk space, if multiple users uploaded the exact same file, they would only store it once, but give the users different links to it. Copyright holders would report infringing content by proving the URLs they found on forums or wherever. Megaupload would then disable the one link specified in the takedown request. They thought this complied with "making the file unavailable", when it clearly didn't. They had been informed that the file was illegal content, but still knowingly had other working URLs that provided access to the file.

---

Just a question, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. I do agree with you on most topics, but not this one.

Have you ever download movies/ufc/tv shows/music or anything at all?

---

Agree with Duiff and BArry on this one and not even much of a debate IMO.

People always use the above statement but there are some big holes in the arguement.

1) Everyone does some illegal things (i.e. drinking underage, littering, jay walking, truancy etc.) does not mean we believe it should be condoned.

2) There is a big difference between occasionally consuming pirated material and distributing/hosting sites to make millions of dollars off of it. The law reflects this distinction in a number of other areas as well.

KIM = GOD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simpdog

Just a question, and I'm not trying to be an asshole. I do agree with you on most topics, but not this one.

Have you ever download movies/ufc/tv shows/music or anything at all?

---

Agree with Duiff and BArry on this one and not even much of a debate IMO.

People always use the above statement but there are some big holes in the arguement.

1) Everyone does some illegal things (i.e. drinking underage, littering, jay walking, truancy etc.) does not mean we believe it should be condoned.

2) There is a big difference between occasionally consuming pirated material and distributing/hosting sites to make millions of dollars off of it. The law reflects this distinction in a number of other areas as well.

---

So every time google leads someone to a site like that, they should, by your reasoning, be cited.

If only PHA hadnt lost his make-believe $11000 he could have told a make-believe story about going to Dotcom's party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

Agree with Duiff and BArry on this one and not even much of a debate IMO.

People always use the above statement but there are some big holes in the arguement.

1) Everyone does some illegal things (i.e. drinking underage, littering, jay walking, truancy etc.) does not mean we believe it should be condoned.

2) There is a big difference between occasionally consuming pirated material and distributing/hosting sites to make millions of dollars off of it. The law reflects this distinction in a number of other areas as well.

---

So every time google leads someone to a site like that, they should, by your reasoning, be cited.

---

How is google involved? They are not hosting illegal content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

So every time google leads someone to a site like that, they should, by your reasoning, be cited.

---

How is google involved? They are not hosting illegal content.

---

They are not hosting but they are a medium for someone getting to there. If someone wants to find a movie they simply can type in google search something like "MoviesName DVDRIP" and find links to various sites that have direct download links. It's a very easy practice to do and if the file is released out there then numerous sites will come up through google to get someone closer to downloading whatever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

How is google involved? They are not hosting illegal content.

---

They are not hosting but they are a medium for someone getting to there. If someone wants to find a movie they simply can type in google search something like "MoviesName DVDRIP" and find links to various sites that have direct download links. It's a very easy practice to do and if the file is released out there then numerous sites will come up through google to get someone closer to downloading whatever they want.

---

Mediums handled differently through the courts, especially in USA where free speech allows for additional protection. While there is some responsibility (google sometimes is required to remove links) it is totally different. Illegal websites pop up on search engines all the time. Still not sure what the point is.

I'm not sure how anyone can compare hosting a website with illegal material and a search engine which lists the site.

I can't discuss this anymore. My biggest issue is how the execution is done by government. It's just typical DOJ come after the big players in the game because we can shut them down and even get money out of it but 1000 other little guys doing the same thing whatever let them go on until they get big. That is pure discriminatory law at it's finest.

I have no problem with a business man making money as long as he follows the law. Their is nothing against owning a file hosting site as long as they follow procedure. If their office workers are sending around illegal material like DirtyB was saying then that is another story though.

The argument of why have file hosting services is retarded as well. Every website is hosted on a file server regardless if it's 50kB, 5MB, or whatever size it might be those are file servers. If we didn't have hosting sites the world wide web wouldn't exist.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...partanbump.gif

Justice Department publishes 191 pages of evidence against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload

By Dante D'Orazio on December 21, 2013 06:01 pm Email @dantedorazio

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/21/5...and-megaupload