10 ms·

I appreciate Kim Dotcom for running MegaUpload and later Mega, in a time when the internet was younger and wilder. Also for his pirate spirit and "stick it to t

• Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
  > I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. I'm far more concerned with the stuff that governments get away with, including infringement of the freedom to share information.
  • preaching5271 2y ago
    Totally fair point, but what can you do? This is how the world works. Fighting such beasts is pointless. You might tame them with lobby money, but no billionaire is interested. And we're now talking about the human spirit that cannot be chained, as also seen in Pirate Bay or Snowden. Sure, people do need heroes and hope from time to time. But I have become less romantic over the years, and more careful.
    • FpUser 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • Joker_vD 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • hiatus 2y ago
          It wasn't a crime against the crown last time?
          • waldothedog 2y ago
            I think they were being sarcastic.
        • suslik 2y ago
          Only if you loose.
          • Joker_vD 2y ago
            Right, of course Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
    • HeckFeck 2y ago
      You can adapt and fit in to the establishment, and I wouldn't suggest any moral problem with it. We definitely need stability - the raising of children requires it, trappings like clubs and societies and clean streets are great, but I think the spirit of mavericks like Kim is much more 'right' about something that institutions will always miss. I can't celebrate this at all, and I am never sympathising with legal thuggery. It is just naked power exerting itself and it will always be ugly.
      • chii 2y ago
        While it's true the copyright lobby tried to make an example out of kim, it is completely useless in stopping piracy nor any form of copyright infringement that will inevitably continue to happen. > It is just naked power exerting itself and it's a relatively minor showing of it. Compare it to direct assasination of foreign nationals (of which both the US as well as russia has done). The chinese stationing covert forces to try to police their migrant nationals overseas (spy stuff basically), or if what snowden leaked is as widespread is it is alleged, the amount of hoovering of information and surveillance that exists!
      • FredPret 2y ago
        The maverick spirit is definitely more right that wrong, especially in the long run.
    • jokethrowaway 2y ago
      Educate the next generations. Maybe we'll have a generation of people with a backbone again who will be able to free us from government oppression. The trend is going the other way, so I think we're heading to socialism-ville for a repetition of last century's lessons.
      • commodoreboxer 2y ago
        A lot of the best things we have in the modern world are "socialism". Libraries and parks are socialist. Socialism isn't a dirty word, nor is it an argument or a criticism.
        • Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
          > Socialism isn't a dirty word, It is, for people like me, who have actually experienced living under a socialist regime.
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
          • paulryanrogers 2y ago
            Was it the socialism or the autocracy, behind thr veil, which made it so unpleasant?
            • Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
              The socialism, of course. Unlike socialism, autocracy can be prosperous.
              • paulryanrogers 2y ago
                Is there somewhere I can read more about it? Because there are democratic socialist countries doing quite well (especially in Scandinavia), and autocracies of all kinds doing poorly (like Venezuela).
    • jtriangle 2y ago
      Fight in the shade
    • diego_sandoval 2y ago
      > Fighting such beasts is pointless. You realize that if everyone thought that, the world would be a worse place?
  • costeveret 2y ago
    [flagged]
• stainablesteel 2y ago
  not really, his website was based on hong kong, this is a fight against america playing world police, which i'm on board with they have no business going after just a single man so fervently, he's a foreign national and the websites weren't based in the US
  • tim333 2y ago
    He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. And unlike say normal use of bittorrent, making a lot of money off it. And being the largest player doing that. I'm not sure about the morals but you can certainly understand financially why they've gone after him.
    • localfirst 2y ago
      is US intellectual property a national security issue? I don't understand why they went to such extent pursuing a man for simply running a piracy site meanwhile US is losing influence and trust on geopolitical stage, shouldn't that be the bigger issue edit: im being rate limited so heres my response to comment below: I didn't say anybody was replacing US, merely they are losing credibility and prestige on world stage and this isn't recent and not slowing down. I don't think any country will be able to replace US and its freedom of maritime navigation anytime soon. China is in no position to project as its undergoing internal turmoil. Neither is Russia. BRICS also won't offer much. One potential non-zero chance scenario is the northern artic sea routes opening up due to rising temperatures melting ice bypassing the need to route through singapore and suez canal which would put Russia back on the power map. US is a hyperpower and there is no equal. Maybe a unified Korea with extended northern manchuria territories can fill the vacuum left by China and Russia in the region. I don't really see any other candidates.
      • gameman144 2y ago
        One of the reasons the US is viewed as such a good place to start a business is that the country will go to bat for their (favored) businesses internationally. National security is very far from the only scenario where the government will intervene in geopolitics, for better or worse.
• halyconWays 2y ago
  There's no evidence that piracy causes any type of harm to these multi-trillion dollar American entertainment conglomerates. Moving heaven and earth to extract a citizen from another country using the power of the state, and drag him before their feet is tyrannical.
  • nkmnz 2y ago
    Here's your evidence: I would have bought House on DVD 15 years ago if there hadn't been the option to stream it illegally. You might object this evidence by telling me that you bought all seasons of House only because you had been streaming it illegally before, and that you wouldn't have done so without previously streaming it – but in most jurisdictions, this kind of "business procurement" does not cancel out the harm done in the first case. Anyways, the burden to disprove the harm done through me not buying it is on you.
    • kylebenzle 2y ago
      I think what they are saying is there is no way to compare a good when it's free to when there is even a nominal cost. My "counter evidence" to your example could be something like: I bought House on DVD 10 years ago because my friend who had pirated it told me it was a good show to checkout.
    • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      > Anyways, the burden to disprove the harm done through me not buying it is on you. Is that legally how it works? This sounds a lot like being guilty until proven innocent...
    • ruthmarx 2y ago
      > the harm done in the first case. There is no harm done in the first case. You say you would have bought House if you couldn't have streamed it, but I say that's nonsense. If you didn't want to pay for it you would have borrowed it from a library or a friend.
  • hylaride 2y ago
    > There's no evidence that piracy causes any type of harm to these multi-trillion dollar American entertainment conglomerates. I think there is business "harm" to piracy, but it's (mostly) vastly overstated. If I illegally download a song/movie I wouldn't have otherwise bought, did anybody lose out? There was a reason Napster was popular in colleges, because many of those people were cash poor. Music industry revenue peaked in 2000 at $21B and went down to ~$7B in 2015 before steadily growing again. Also, the entertainment industry are not multi-trillion dollar conglomerates. Not even close. Disney is worth $160B and Netflix is $260B. That being said, if it were up to the music industry we'd still be paying the inflation adjusted equivalent of $20 for an album we only like one song on and we wouldn't be able to create out own playlists. You can only fight the consumer for so long (and they fought long and hard). That's to say nothing about the morality of repeatedly increasing copyright from 14 years to life plus 70 (which is BS). The Beatles' great great grandchildren (or whoever owns the rights later on) shouldn't still be benefiting from intellectual property. > Moving heaven and earth to extract a citizen from another country using the power of the state, and drag him before their feet is tyrannical. This is what rule of law is. KDC knew he was breaking the law and not only didn't do anything about it, but invested in an encouraged it to benefit himself financially. Even after being charged and having megaupload shut down, he then tried again. Do you really feel sorry for him?
• colordrops 2y ago
  If everyone just sat back and allowed the powers to do what they please, we'd have absolutely nothing in this world. Countless have spilled blood or have been killed over the fight for freedom in the past giving us the humanist open society we have now. The fight is never over.
  • FredPret 2y ago
    This isn't a clear-cut case of humanism vs something else. Humanist values include right to property ownership, and the right to get the benefits of your work. Artists deserve that, and can sell their rights to big studios if they want. Just because it's easy to copy something, or just because studio execs were idiots who wouldn't get on board with streaming, or whatever else, doesn't mean it's morally right to copy someone's work for free.
    • scarmig 2y ago
      Humanism arose during the Renaissance, when scholars and artists gleefully cribbed from each other's work without attribution and copyright didn't even exist. It's perfectly fine to copy someone else's work. The immorality comes in when you start using physical force to punish people thinking thoughts you feel entitled to.
      • FredPret 2y ago
        I'm 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech. Copying scientific ideas (with attribution!) is completely OK and good. Having heterodox ideas is vital for society. Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil. But making a movie is a commercial enterprise that involves risking a bunch of capital. It rarely pans out to make a profit. Copying it without payment is a very minor form of theft, but it's still theft.
        • MacsHeadroom 2y ago
          Depriving someone of their liberty over interference with a revenue model based on copyright protections is not 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech.
• gliiics 2y ago
  It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money was. But: > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?
  • lenerdenator 2y ago
    Whistleblowing is not the same as hosting pirated material.
    • NamTaf 2y ago
      Yes, that’s the point the poster is making. They are not the same despite being united by the fact that in both cases the government got involved and said “stop that, it’s wrong”. They explicitly stated their point that there’s a moral spectrum of positions which means it’s not always right to just roll over and find something else to do when the authorities get involved.
      • bandyaboot 2y ago
        I don’t know if it’s just coincidence, but I’ve been seeing this so much lately. People reflexively responding that thing A is totally different than thing B, completely missing that the point is not to suggest similarity between A and B, but to challenge the reasoning being applied to A by noting that it would also apply to B (in most cases where applying it to B leads to a clearly wrong outcome).
        • pishpash 2y ago
          It's standard trolling technique, or maybe rhetorical art to win an argument, your call. Now you have a pointless thread five deep.
        • shiroiushi 2y ago
          It's not a coincidence, it's become extremely common lately in online discussions. Instead of addressing the argument and, perhaps, pointing out why the two differing things should be treated differently, they just act offended and shut down the argument as if making the comparison at all is so offensive and wrong that we can't even discuss it logically.
• itsoktocry 2y ago
  >But people are superficial and tend to develop an "i'm the main character" personality How on earth are you labeling the people persistent to a fault "superficial"???
• bdcravens 2y ago
  Was he trying to stick it to the man, or find a way to enrich himself off of content that people were already sharing? There's a lot of retcon-ing those like him, Ross Ulbricht, etc as freedom fighters, when the truth is they were simply capitalists.
  • gscott 2y ago
    Youtube became popular over similar sites (like Vimeo) by hosting pirated tv episodes. But one was started by ex-Paypal founders and the other bootstrapped (MegaUpload). Worse, while MegaUpload followed the letter of the law by doing removals of content that was reported as pirated they fell afoul of the law by stringently going after child pornographers and a court decided they can do that then they could do the same for piracy. So, they followed the law but, in their case, now the law is something entirely different and unexpected.
    • IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
      >>> Youtube became popular over similar sites (like Vimeo) by hosting pirated tv episodes. +10x Twitch. I still remember JustinTV .. >>>> Worse, while MegaUpload followed the letter of the law by doing removals of content that was reported as pirated Could you please elaborate ? The implication is that other similar sites were not removing child pornography or similar ?
      • sanswork 2y ago
        Not 100% sure what your first line means so apologies if I'm telling you something you already know but just want to point out that Twitch is JustinTV. They just rebranded the gaming section of the original site.
        • IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
          No need to apologize. To clarify. I remember when JustinTV was basically 100% illegal (copyrighted) content. That's how the service that we now know as Twitch built its resilient infra: battle tested with a bunch of teens broadcasting random stuff. No one batted an eye . So i was using JustinTV (Twitch) as an example of piracy that was overlooked, because because someone big had invested in it.
• sizzle 2y ago
  Who is running mega.co.nz? It looks like a superior offering compared to mega upload with sophisticated encryption and decoding.
  • KeplerBoy 2y ago
    Kim runs it. Isn't it the defacto successor to the now defunct mega upload?
    • malux85 2y ago
      No he no longer runs it, and no longer is involved with it, and does not own any shares in it anymore. He started it as an improved successor to megaupload, but something shady happened about 2015ish with a Chinese investment firm doing some kind of hostile takeover.
• heraldgeezer 2y ago
  >I appreciate Kim Dotcom for running MegaUpload and later Mega, in a time when the internet was younger and wilder. I like this. Us internet boomers got to learn and get everything for free. The new kids coming in are paywalled to hell :)
  • bloqs 2y ago
    only in the avenues you continue to inhabit. New aventues that you dont are flourishing with the same human spirit to work around paying for things that have persisted forever
    • heraldgeezer 2y ago
      Yes.. like... Tiktok?? :D
• Suppafly 2y ago
  unrelated, but why is your username a different color than the others in this thread?
  • mesmertech 2y ago
    its that color for people who recently signed up
    • Suppafly 2y ago
      interesting that's the first time I've noticed it.
• kaliqt 2y ago
  This is the wrong position to take. The government is wrong, and a bully, the answer is not to give them what they want.
  • mike_d 2y ago
    How is the government wrong? He is being charged with money laundering and wire fraud, both things that require pretty substantial paper trails to prove in court. I think enough time has passed that I can say this openly: I worked for an ad network that was used by MegaUpload. Most of the traffic from his site was fraudulent bot traffic. Mysterious advertisers would repeatedly rebuy ad placements that were clearly not generating any returns. There was definitely things that didn't add up to the point I would error on the side of believing the government on this one.
    • fsflover 2y ago
      How does this support extradition to an unrelated country?
      • user-the-name 2y ago
        [dead]
• somastoma 2y ago
  Elon Musk comes to mind...
• swayvil 2y ago
  I can think of a worse habit.
• oceanplexian 2y ago
  > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? The problem is that government doesn’t have a line, that line is defined by the resistance it faces. Today it might be people sharing MP3s, tomorrow they will come after you for hosting a parody of mickey mouse. 10 years from now they’ll be busting down doors for sharing illegal memes (Seems to already be the case in the UK). Sitting by passively and praying that the system will come to its senses is a fool’s errand. Copyright holders, the government, and powerful interests are entities that have no problem playing dirty.
  • brownvshemmin 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • philistine 2y ago
    > (Seems to already be the case in the UK) [Citation needed]
    • Takennickname 2y ago
      I googled it and found it.
      • itohihiyt 2y ago
        I googled and didn't. So citation needed.
      • katbyte 2y ago
        … and you didn’t see a need to share it here?
        • Takennickname 2y ago
• Krasnol 2y ago
  > Also for his pirate spirit and "stick it to the man" attitude. When the internet was even younger, and he called himself Kimble, he sold out other pirates to save his own ass. His attitude is of a selfish and greedy person. Nothing to be admired.
• DaoVeles 2y ago
  Alas for many negative things to take flight, they will always make a call to virtue.
• austinjp 2y ago
  What's going on here? A new account, attracting several comments about a controversial figure. I'm not convinced the parent comment is actually bringing much to the party, yet it's getting traffic. How do online communities discuss controversial subjects while ensuring good-faith participation?
  • codsane 2y ago
    I’m not sure what this comment brings to the table either, I mean are you really saying their opinion is invalid because they’re new / haven’t “put enough time in”? That doesn’t seem very fair. I don’t think newcomers should be excluded from conversations…what’s the requirement; 12, 24, 48 months? Who determines that? Account age isn’t the best indicator of good-faith participation (accounts can be hacked, bought, etc.). Instead engage with the content itself and where it comes from to determine if it seems to be in “good-faith”. Ironically, writing off someone’s opinion based on a single (potentially unrelated) fact is probably “bad-faith”.
  • lolinder 2y ago
    HN has moderators that track things like that and can see where the upvotes are coming from and determine if the attention is genuine. If you're concerned, the correct approach is to email them about it, not post vague accusations of astroturfing. From the guidelines: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
• rustcleaner 2y ago
  >Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? No, you make tools which are easily copied and spread which disempower states and groups and instead empower individuals to act unimpeded. You make tools which make it impossible to enforce copyright or any other state imperative because everybody has the tools needed to neutralize the group attempting to use force. The correct answer is to formulate software and memes (human software) which act as viruses which infect the local carriers of the overall social operating system (in America it is some flavor of American Westernism), turning the original operating system non-functional (Bezmenov's demoralization), and steamroll the reigning technocratic elite off top the tiger and install yourselves, or your StateDAO, or whatever. When the system is going to take at least a decade, that should be treated as a pending life sentence or execution, and I admire anyone who fights it to the death even. Just don't go in, get housed in concrete, work for $0.68/hour they deduct 75% for housing from and then sell you bricks of Ramen for $1, while dodging shivs from behind. At that point it is too late to act to defend yourself! You need a year of this treatment if you disagree with me!
  • malwrar 2y ago
    The problem is, then they just go after the tools. There’s absolutely nothing stopping one from creating a pirate streaming tool based on e.g. torrents, but popcorntime doesn’t exist precisely because the movie industry frowned intensely at them. The core problem is that the government, if compelled to act, seems able to do whatever it wants to protect rich people’s interests. Cute loopholes like making tools vs sharing content are covered over eventually, hell even links are taken down now by DMCA requests.
    • rustcleaner 2y ago
      Because people don't generally build from the ground up like they're selling fake IDs and cocaine on the darknet. They have no experience, and no understanding on how normal everyday choices and behaviors leave trails which track back to them. When they register a domain, did they use false info? Payment cards well detached from their identities? Do they post code to GitHub with accounts tied to their personal e-mail addresses? Does any normal person sit down like me and think about the ways their true identity can be discovered? "LOL no I'm not selling drugs or snuff so I have nothing to hide nothing to fear! :^)" is the chorus most recited. Ergo, when MPAA lawyers come knocking, they got the dox and they got men with submachine guns and badges on speed dial. Set it up right and you can thumb your nose at all of them forever.
• riedel 2y ago
  I still do wonder also in the light of Julian Assange why in the age oft the Internet one always need to worried about extradiction. Why cannot New Zealand handle the crimes or maybe Germany where he is citizen. Also in the age of the internet a remote trial should even be possible and if the US is keen on it they can pay for the prison in New Zealand. Not saying I like him or what he did. But this always seems so political.
• shafyy 2y ago
  I don't know, Kim Dotcom's Wikipedia page reads like the one of sociopath criminal that masquerades as a fighter of the people against "the man". But the dude has done some real illegal shit, beyond "just" illegal file sharing. Some examples, but go read his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom > Schmitz was arrested in March 1994 for selling stolen phone numbers and held in custody for a month. He was arrested again in 1998 on more hacking charges and convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud and 10 counts of data espionage. He was given a two-year suspended sentence; the judge of the case described Schmitz's actions as "youthful foolishness". > In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump,resulting in a €1.5 million profit for Schmitz. Also, that he used many of these things to enrich himself and live a lavish lifestyle does not exactly make him more likeable to me.
  • mjt91 2y ago
    >In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump,resulting in a €1.5 million profit for Schmitz. This is just _dumb money_. Also I dont see how this is different to many crypto marketeers today.
    • djur 2y ago
      It's insider trading. I'm not sure if you're trying to defend him by comparing him to other con artists?
      • hgfhfdg 2y ago
        [flagged]
    • nullc 2y ago
      He's been doing the same stuff inside the cryptocurrency space in recent years, FWIW.
• bulbosaur123 2y ago
  > I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. Russia or China wouldn't have extradited him. Also, he'd probably live a peaceful, wonderful life had he not flexed and talked shit on Twitter so much.
• jagermo 2y ago
  > i'm the main character" personality he always had this and has always been selling snake oil. He might gotten some clout with mega but he always has been a charlatan. https://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/kimble/ https://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/kimble/
• majani 2y ago
  If someone spends just one day on a video production set at any level, they will never pirate media again.
• fennecfoxy 2y ago
  Yes but he also let his true colours show through when it came to his treatment of New Zealand, as a safe haven to run from the law rather than a home. He wanted to stick his nose into politics and start twisting things using his wealth there too, to the point that many Kiwis couldn't give a shit about what happens to him.