Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Megaupload Founder Dodges Jail Again; Wife Under Investigation

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the you'll-never-catch-me dept.

Piracy 175

New submitter xenn writes "The linked article, titled by TVNZ as 'Kim Dotcom bail appeal dismissed, funds released,' somehow doesn't quite capture the drama the lies within... 'Meanwhile, it emerged today that U.S. authorities are investigating Dotcom's pregnant wife, Mona Dotcom, as part of a world-wide sting on Internet piracy. Toohey said she had received a preliminary application from the U.S. indicating that Mona could have been involved in Megaupload.'" Torrentfreak adds that U.S. attempts to put Kim Dotcom back in jail failed, and he's been granted access to his bank accounts to cover essential expenses (to the tune of $30+k per month).

cancel ×

175 comments

mega piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198995)

n/t

30K/month is probably "essential" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199057)

30K is not that much to pay the lawyers...

Re:30K/month is probably "essential" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199131)

Given the summary "$30+k", it depends on the value of "k".

Re:30K/month is probably "essential" (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199291)

$32+k

Re:30K/month is probably "essential" (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39201043)

Well, in the New Zealand news it said he initially asked for NZ$220 / month (nearly quarter of a million kiwi dollars). That's a lot of cheezeburgas!

It's a witch hunt (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199063)

The feds should be going after the users that upload the content, not the hosts.

Re:It's a witch hunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199123)

A good way to stop the popular demand for drugs, too. Worked for Mao.

Re:It's a witch hunt (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199145)

Because that's less of a witch hunt...

Re:It's a witch hunt! (4, Informative)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199209)

The feds are using the classic witch hunt methodology as explained by Monty Python-

BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!

Don't worry, they'll be going after the other witches/uploaders/pirates once they go through Megaupload's servers.

Re:It's a witch hunt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39201651)

You're quoting that from memory, aren't you? And you're apparently not familiar with the underlying Arthurian legendarium, either.

Bedivere. Sir Bedivere [wikipedia.org] . In the original legend, Arthur's Marshal. In Monty Python's rendition, Sir Bedevere the Wise [wikipedia.org] . (Note the variant spelling, which appears to come from the script. /shrug.)

Monty Python is srs bzns.

Re:It's a witch hunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199223)

Wait... stop going after the guys at the top and go after the uploaders? Wouldn't that be MORE of a witch hunt?

Re:It's a witch hunt (4, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199439)

no, it'd be a wild goose chase, just ask the RIAA how it's working for them

Re:It's a witch hunt (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199573)

The problem is they're going after the shop keeper who might or might not have actually known that some of his customers were witches.

Re:It's a witch hunt (3, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199661)

It's more like them putting Sony Execs in jail because a Walkman might play non-licenced MP3s.

Re:It's a witch hunt (2)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199817)

Or ducks. You can't always tell.

Re:It's a witch hunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200061)

The problem is they're going after the shop keeper who might or might not have actually known that some of his customers were witches.

If that were true, I'd be upset too, but they claim to have evidence showing they not only knew what was going on, but participated. If it's true that the staff at Megaupload was downloading illegal copies from their own system, then there is no "might" about it. It's more like the shop keeper who is a witch and caters to witches and goes out and does witchy things with them. Now, the government needs to prove their case, but they say they have e-mails showing the people involved sharing links to "pirated" data. Sounds pretty open and closed, not "might" to me.

Re:It's a witch hunt (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200563)

I might be a bit more sympathetic to their position had they not burned the shop down before even beginning to hold a trial.

Re:It's a witch hunt (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199543)

Regardless, I still think he should be locked away for a long time, honestly.

Not for the piracy, no, but because he was enough of a fucking douchenozzle to change his name to "Dotcom".

Seriously. That shit should've died back in the 90s with the tech bubble.

Re:It's a witch hunt (4, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199929)

I heard Tech Bubble was his cousin.

Re:It's a witch hunt (3, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200337)

The Feds should be going after the MAFIAA execs for fraudulent accounting, withholding taxes, racketeering and corruption.

But it seems they've got a lot of dirty cops and bought judges on their payroll these days.

Re:It's a witch hunt (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200377)

Gotta nuke em from orbit...It's the only way to be sure.

Re:It's a witch hunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200993)

Only problem with this is that court documents point to an informant giving info to the U.S. attorneys that points to the people behind Megaupload (which includes Kim "Dotcom") shared links to infringing content (to download and use themselves), as well as UPLOADING infringing content.

Re:It's a witch hunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39201189)

I think we should just banish ALL content. If no one was allowed to produce it, then no one would be able to copy it or share it. Problem solved, we could go back to living without the threat of criminal offense for using technology.

Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (2, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199143)

If this were a CEO, doctor, or lawyer who made less than half of what this guy makes and were arrested for something that wasn't related to infringing IP rights then the usual lynch mob would be out screaming about how all "rich" people are evil and we need to destroy Wallstreet and kill all the Republicans, ban Faux News, etc. etc. [insert administration approved Media Matters talking points here].

When the perpetrator is a guy who got rich by getting kickbacks to facilitate piracy, however, he's suddenly some Robin Hood hero who takes from the evil rich music & movie companies to give to uh... himself. Suddenly he's no longer an evil 1%er and is our new personal hero just like Michael Moore & Bill Maher.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199241)

Are we reading the same Slashdot? People around here love rich technologists whenever they do anything that the Slashdot crowd considers good/interesting/cool. Kim Dotcom is hardly the only rich person to get plaudits; people can't fall over themselves fast enough with praise whenever John Carmack is mentioned, and Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX) has a large fanbase as well.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199323)

Unless the rich technologist is Bill Gates.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (4, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199691)

Yeah, the rich technologist Bill Gates who has blown his billions on malaria research, HIV/AIDS research, composting toilet technology, etc.

What an asshole.

Come to think of it, Windows machines might be used for piracy. Maybe they should be investigating some folks in Richmond...

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (5, Funny)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199791)

Whats Virginia got to do with it?

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199981)

^ Mod funny.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200415)

The billions were made through assholery: laundering the money through a personal charity to pretend that a clean asshole is not an asshole is just another way of shitting on the world.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199843)

People around here love rich technologists whenever they do anything that the Slashdot crowd considers good/interesting/cool.

Unless the rich technologist is Bill Gates.

When, exactly, was Microsoft good, interesting, or cool?

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (4, Insightful)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200147)

> When, exactly, was Microsoft good, interesting, or cool?

In the mid- to late 1980s.

In those days, IBM a monopolistic corporate behemoth that suppressed innovation to protect their market, and we all suspected that their long term strategy in the PC marketplace was "embrace and extinguish", in favor of the more lucrative mainframe trade that restricted computation to people who could pay a lot.

Microsoft, on the other hand, had a reasonably well-documented OS with lots of hooks to hang extensions on, and decent development tools that weren't too expensive. MS-DOS opened up the machine and gave you convenient access to it at many levels, you really felt like you could do anything with it.

You may vacate my lawn at your convenience.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

styrotech (136124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39201455)

In the mid- to late 1980s

DOS was never interesting or cool - even in the mid to late eighties. Just about every other personal computer patform around at the time was far more interesting and way cooler - Amigas, Apple Macs, Atari STs, Acorns etc.

In those days, IBM a monopolistic corporate behemoth that suppressed innovation to protect their market, and we all suspected that their long term strategy in the PC marketplace was "embrace and extinguish", in favor of the more lucrative mainframe trade that restricted computation to people who could pay a lot.

Microsoft, on the other hand, had a reasonably well-documented OS with lots of hooks to hang extensions on, and decent development tools that weren't too expensive.

MS-DOS opened up the machine and gave you convenient access to it at many levels, you really felt like you could do anything with it.

I can see how that might've seemed good (although not exactly interesting or cool) to the corporate Lotus 123 crowd though.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (2, Interesting)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199245)

We like him because he is sort of our "Robin Hood". he takes from the big media companies and gives to the media-poor...

the audience of this site typically hates MPAA/RIAA they are like the sheriff. and we don't entirely like most IP laws and think they are too restrictive.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199261)

30+k does seem excessive, unless this amount also includes money to be spent on legal council, at which case you could easily blow through that in a single month. Fucking lawers are expensive.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (5, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199387)

If he has a mortgage on his $5 million house that alone will eat into most of that amount. And there are good reasons the fabulously wealthy would have a loan rather than pay cash, namely the fact that once you get to a certain amount of money, using it to generate more money is pretty easy. You'll probably come out better off with a loan with a crazy low interest rate (since you have the cash and income to cover it times 10) and invest the same money in something else (if you make even a 7% profit you come out well ahead).

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199267)

Difference between a 1%er and Dotcom is that the guy actually spends money at something close to the rate that normal people do, rather than gathering more and more and more and more while changing the rules of society in order to gain more and more and more.

If all the 1%ers were like him then there wouldn't really be such a big issue.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199435)

[...] while changing the rules of society in order to gain more and more and more.

To be fair, rather than changing the rules he just chooses to ignore them, or at the very least interpret them in a way that allows him to make millions of dollars at other people's expense. I completely agree that the current copyright and patent system is broken and unrealistic in a modern world, but that doesn't mean I think people should be able to become multi-millionares by helping people distribute other people's work.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200959)

that doesn't mean I think people should be able to become multi-millionares by helping people distribute other people's work

That's pretty much how it's done. The owners of your company don't pay you royalties. Bust just like them, the guy who owns one of the most popular websites in the world deserves to be rich.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (1, Flamebait)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199289)

Yeah, how dare they complain about wealth disparity that's barely higher than it was during the Great Depression, the nerve of those people.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (5, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199401)

I think the problem here is not that he's rich and probably of questionable morals, but that there is an imbalance of justice that is being applied. Here, there is a concerted effort to pursue an individual who is key in distributing probably millions of dollars worth in copyrights. Meanwhile, the justice system couldn't give two shits about prosecuting bankers for predatory loan practiced or curtailing insider trading among congress critters. As such, this event doesn't demonstrate one guy getting nailed for doing something wrong but rather one rich group going after a slightly less-rich individual to protect their profits. This activities of the former even extend to the non-rich individuals. Given this, it's hard to be cheerful when justice is not being applied for justice's-sake but rather for moneyed interests.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (3, Insightful)

dthx1138 (833363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200739)

Meanwhile, the justice system couldn't give two shits about prosecuting bankers for predatory loan practiced or curtailing insider trading among congress critters.

Two things: One, the predatory lending practices and other shady shit that wall street did prior to the financial collapse was for the most part perfectly legal. That was the problem, and we don't do ex-post-facto laws around here. AFAIK, in the cases where there were illegal actions, investigations are ongoing (also, congress managed to change the laws for next time. See Dodd-Frank).

Secondly, the justice department has no control over insider trading in congress. Again, that's a legal activity which some congressional members are trying to make illegal by passing a bill. Separation of powers, my friend.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (2)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200899)

You're right. Those are bad examples. I guess the point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of imbalance that exists, which those in power do not pursue with the fervor. Megauploads, does not explicitly distribute copyrighted materials but enables it, putting it on some darkish-gray line with respect to the law. Meanwhile there are other practices which fall in some similar gray area, but little effort is made to correct for them.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (5, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199413)

The problem with your argument is this: you assume that those who see a problem with the distribution of wealth think that we should not reward merit at all.

This is not the case.

What is the case is that the disparity of wealth, when it grows too extreme, does not drive industry; it does not build a middle class, and it rewards existent wealth as opposed to rewarding hard work, diligence and innovation. Especially when so much of it is hoarded in offshore accounts.

An extreme disparity of wealth leads to a third world economy (see also Mexico) and destroys the middle class. And historically, when it gets bad enough, it causes a nation to rip itself apart.

Furthermore, it leads to corruption of democracy, as we've seen in this country. From Citizens United to the "private fundraisers", too much of our system is bought and paid for by the concentration of wealth that we've allowed to develop in the hands of the very few. It warps both the social fabric, and

Are all successful people in the 1% evil? No. Are all of their gains always ill gotten? No. However, the concentration of wealth in this nation, the disparity of income for effort, has grown so extreme that it no longer furthers those things that capitalism is supposed to be good at promoting: hard work, merit, innovation and the rest of the values that it is supposed to drive.

Here, here (4, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200259)

The only boats the contemporary US ecomony raises are yachts.

Where did the last US generation shop? Sears, Montgomery Wards, JC Penney. Where does this generation (have) to shop? Walmart and Best Buy. That ain't progress, people.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199417)

Anyone who sees him as the good guy is wrong. He is an evil 1%'er. The RIAA and MPAA are evil too. Just like in politics, you cheer for the lesser of evils.

Who in their right mind would consider Michael Moore as anything more than a blowhard buffoon? He is an idiot, and anyone who thinks he's a hero is also an idiot. I have no idea who Bill Maher is, and I don't care enough to find out, so I won't address his heroism.

I believe that the vast majority of /.'ers would agree with me on these points, and you give us far less credit than we deserve.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199453)

The beauty of politics is that there is always a mob willing to scream about anything. Success is determined by how you are prepared to use that mob.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (2)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199531)

He got rich by having no ethics, just like wall streeters. Fuck him AND the horse he rode in on. And it pisses me off that I have to defend this piece of shit against the questionable-at-best tactics that have been used against him by law enforcement. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199545)

Yeah actually kim schmitz is a complete prick and he probably deserves everything he gets. I suspect this is why he was targeted *first* because after he gets convicted then it will set prescient to destroy other more ethical characters in the same business,

Uh oh-- it's a partisan hack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199617)

If this was a story about a government official dodging jail time for their crime and corruption, the usual lynch mob would be out screaming about how all government is evil and down with welfare and scrap the regulations and vote Ron Paul, etc etc

When the story is about some private individual dodging jail time for a crime related to copyright (a government regulation, btw), however, let's instead use the story as an attack on the bias in the slashdot community, who just won't admit to be dirty thieving pirates!

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199961)

The 1%'rs usually make their money off the backs of the other 99%.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200131)

You're getting slashdot confused with reddit. Remove idle from the main page, and then you can tell them apart.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (4, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200225)

Kim Dotcom isn't a hero, he's a fraud artist. That said, if he has the resources and visibility to pry the lid off the copyright system and its hordes of legal goons, I'll at least give him partial credit. It's less about the actual money, and more about what you do with that money. Right now, copyright is largely used as a "rich get richer" weapon, in part because it is an expensive system to maintain and enforce. If someone halfway around the world decides to upload my app to RapidShare, I have to pay some suit-wearing prick a few thousand in legal consultations, just to get the ball rolling. So for the sake of a $20 piece of software, enforcing copyright makes my lawyer $2000 richer, and me $1980 poorer - assuming I even get my $20 back which is very unlikely.

Your Robin Hood comment is spot-on. Yes, I think Dotcom is a scumbag, but he's less of a scumbag than the thousands of executives behind Disney, Viacom, Sony, Time Warner. He'll also be much easier to take down, even after he takes a bite out of those media cartels. Or, as we radicalist nutbars say: "the end justifies the means".

Re:Uh oh-- it's shill! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200363)

If this were a CEO [...] who made less than half of what this guy makes [...] then the usual lynch mob would be out screaming about how all "rich" people are evil and we need to destroy Wallstreet and kill all the Republicans [...]

Uh, oh -- I smell strawman.

When the perpetrator [...] facilitate[s] piracy, however, he's suddenly some Robin Hood hero [...]

Uh, oh -- I smell shill

Look. Whether this deserves to be called piracy, whether just providing a tool is already a crime [Google, anyone? BitTorrent?] has been hashed to death here.

Just one thing. Dotcom may be a criminal, he may be not. I don't know, nor I do care much. The *AA methods, and FBI's methods are most definitely criminal -- and that's the point of discussion here.

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (2)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200411)

Doctors and most lawyers aren't rich. Many are well off, but few are rich.

--Jeremy

Re:Uh oh-- it's a 1%er! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39201053)

If this were a CEO, doctor, or lawyer who made less than half of what this guy makes and were arrested for something that wasn't related to infringing IP rights then the usual lynch mob would be out screaming about how all "rich" people are evil and we need to destroy Wallstreet and kill all the Republicans, ban Faux News, etc. etc. [insert administration approved Media Matters talking points here].

When the perpetrator is a guy who got rich by getting kickbacks to facilitate piracy, however, he's suddenly some Robin Hood hero who takes from the evil rich music & movie companies to give to uh... himself. Suddenly he's no longer an evil 1%er and is our new personal hero just like Michael Moore & Bill Maher.

It's more a case of why isn't he being prosectuted for breaking New Zealand laws. As a New Zealander I couldn't give a toss if our courts sentence him to 50 years, being Americas lacky is what grinds my gears. I bet David Lange would turn in his grave, the only leader we have ever had to tell America to go fuck itself.

Premature (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199171)

Have to wonder if the US over-played its hand in this case. Seems very little is going the way they've hoped.

Anyone know the score, btw? Is piracy, err.. unauthorized online archiving stamped out yet?

Re:Premature (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200535)

Have to wonder if the US over-played its hand in this case. Seems very little is going the way they've hoped.

No, I don't think so. The desired result has already been achieved -- they have wrecked his business.

All that is happening now is after-the-fact justification for wrecking the business and to avoid accusations that the sole purpose was not to go after a criminal, but to wreck a business that some powerful people did not like.

$30,000 a month (2, Funny)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199217)

well he is a big guy so thats gonna be one heck of a food bill.

Re:$30,000 a month (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199465)

His head must weigh fifty pounds on its own.

Let's play a game of "what if" (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199327)

What if the entertainment industry had never contributed money to the Obama campaign?

Would Megaupload have been shut down? Would Kim Dotcom have been arrested? Would ACTA have become an international agreement? Would ISPs have volunteered to adopt a "six strikes" policy against customers accused of copyright infringement? Would the culture of IP maximalism so evident in the Obama administration exist at all?

Re:Let's play a game of "what if" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199737)

Yes.

Re:Let's play a game of "what if" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39201253)

No.

Re:Let's play a game of "what if" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39201417)

No, the real question is "What if Kim Dotcom had donated to the political campaigns of both parties?"

The Real Story (3, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199371)

Guys. Guys.

The real story here is the name of his wife. Kim Dotcom. Really? She was willing to take that last name?

Re:The Real Story (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199487)

Wouldn't be the worst thing a woman has done for money.

Re:The Real Story (1)

eam (192101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200065)

Hell, it probably isn't the worse thing she's done for money.

Re:The Real Story (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199493)

Guys. Guys.

The real story here is the name of his wife. Kim Dotcom. Really? She was willing to take that last name?

*He* is Kim Dotcom, she is Mona Dotcom. But yes, she did take his last name, apparently.

Re:The Real Story (-1, Flamebait)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199525)

She was willing to marry and have sex with an ugly fat dude, the last name isn't that big of a deal.

Re:The Real Story (4, Funny)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199687)

I can't think what attracted her to the millionaire Kim Dotcom.

Re:The Real Story (0)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200395)

A ha ha ha ha... oh man, I lost it at that one. That was perfect.

Re:The Real Story (4, Informative)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199535)

He's Kim Dotcom. She's Mona Dotcom.

Forget the last name, what about "Kim"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200369)

Seriously, you're a fat fuck saddled with a girl's first name. You get rich and decide to change your name. And you KEEP the girl's name?!?!? Make that a STUPID, FAT FUCK.

Re:The Real Story (1, Funny)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200439)

As in "she's in it for the mona".

Re:The Real Story (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200075)

"Schmitz" is better?

YES! I came (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199415)

Take that thieves! Next stop the library.nu founder, I hope they hold a public hanging instead of some boring behind-the-doors execution

Oh man this is going to be great.

When I need to send files across the globe, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199449)

I use Mega---

GOd DaMN iT WhERe Is My WArEz SiTe At!?!

GoD DAmN HonKiEs ShuT DowN mY WaREz Site!?!

So where are the dozens of replacements? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199623)

Wasn't the big argument against going after hosts like these that when they brought one down, some 20 or so others would pop up all around the world to take its place (what happened right after napster at the turn of the century being a prominent example of this), and trying to stop them all would be like playing an eternal game of whack-a-mole, where the total number of moles keeps getting larger every time you hit one down.

Not that I've gone looking particularly hard - I never had any reason to use megaupload in the first place, but I'm sorta curious... where are all the replacements that would have been predicted to surface?

Re:So where are the dozens of replacements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200033)

Does it count if there were twenty times too many before MU was ever in danger of going down?

Re:So where are the dozens of replacements? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200309)

The replacements already existed before MU was shutdown, they just get used more.

Re:So where are the dozens of replacements? (2)

boast (1227952) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200831)

mediafire, putfile, etc... all jumped in usage. Check google news. It only slowed down piracy for like a week.

Funds (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199645)

While he got 30K US$ released for the next 3 weeks, he has asked for 180K US$ for "expenses" ;-). Not a shy guy...

Re:Funds (3, Interesting)

Time2303 (2473234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199871)

While he got 30K US$ released for the next 3 weeks, he has asked for 180K US$ for "expenses" ;-). Not a shy guy...

"This sum included $24,000 for security, $29,000 for staff wages and $28,678 for general costs. Among the general costs was a monthly power bill of $8500 and $6000 per month in phonecalls." http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6501320/Dotcoms-expenses-through-the-roof [stuff.co.nz]

criminals (4, Insightful)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199653)

It's sad that we root for a scumbag like Kim Dotcom. It's sad, because he's an underdog criminals in a system of super criminals. Chris Dodd is no less scumbag criminal mastermind than Kim Dotcom, but Chris Dodd bribed the right people to make it seem like he's legit. Don't get me wrong, I also root for Kim Dotcom, but let's not forget he's a scumbag... he's just not as big scumbag as the "legal" scumbags that currently rule the world.

Re:criminals (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200039)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:criminals (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200183)

"Scumbag"? You probably just envy his success.

It's not like he's ever been convicted of a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200339)

He has? Nevermind.

Re:It's not like he's ever been convicted of a cri (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39201069)

He has been convicted, and was punished for it. In theory his slate was clean (apart from the record of the previous convictions). Now he tried to start a more legit business sailing *just* on the right side of the law. Was good enough for New Zealand but not good enough for the US Recording MAFIA.

People on my side must be perfect (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200887)

Progress is not worth having to read about or even mildly support if there are flawed people with shared interests fighting on my side.

My business should fail and we should be laid off because 1 of my coworkers is a jerk; that is only fair! Why should I work to prop up a business which employs a jerk even if it costs me my job? I have to set the threshold somewhere... so it might as well be at ZERO. ;-)

What does... (1)

ThisIsNotMyHandel (1013943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199671)

What does the wife being pregnant have to do with possible illegal activities?

Someone think of the child!!! (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199859)

Everyone knows being pregnant makes it impossible for you to commit a crime. Your hormones won't let you. Therefore it is an outrage that she is being investigated. Won't someone think of the child!

It works the same with being disabled in any way, or being a grandmother. They are not so much "get out of jail free" cards as "certifiably pure as driven snow innocent" cards.

Example me this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199775)

Are they going to realize these grand example making 'stings' no longer work? Not for "Piracy" anyway. Somalians have that market cornered anyway.

No one is scared. No one is impressed. They are annoyed at how '*IAA's bitch' the NA Govs have become though.

That said after learning who was running megaupload, I am sure happy enough to see him fall. Just not for the reasons I'm supposed to....

Not as much as you think (1, Interesting)

Time2303 (2473234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199785)

The money that Kim Dotcom requested is used to pay for the mansion that he is renting (due to being denied purchasing land in NZ) which is somewhere in the vicinity of $20k per month and he also has to pay for the huge phone bill from calling the United States to his defence team - the cost of which is about $0.33/minute which makes 60 minute call cost $19.80. If he's on the phone for 3 hours a day, 7 days a week then in 30 days his phone cost is over $1600.00. The security guards, butler and nannies also need to be paid.

Re:Not as much as you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200245)

Can't do the time or pay the fine, don't do the crime. Simple really...

Re:Not as much as you think (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200333)

If only there was a cheaper way to communicate over great distances...

Gee, That's Too Bad... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200353)

Sounds like a case of "Gee Citizen, you're fighting us legally and winning. It's too bad that now we'll just have to go after your pregnant wife, and possibly force her to give birth in jail. It's not very safe in those places. We certainly hope she doesn't get shanked! We also hope the prison doctor doesn't "accidentally" drop your son/daughter on their head.

Why don't you fire those bothersome and expensive lawyers, stop fighting our charges, and we can sit down and have a cozy little chat about it? If you sign this little piece of paper for us confessing to your evil deeds, we won't be forced to do something to your family and friends we'd rather not be forced to do. You can keep your wife and unborn child safe and be out of prison in practically no time at all if you'll just cooperate. Ve Haff Vays of making you [cough-cough] sorry, don't know where that came from..."

Strat

When two TLDs love each other very much... (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200565)

Am I the only one who secretly hoped his wife was named Kim Dotnet?

Re:When two TLDs love each other very much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39200687)

Secret. I don't think this means what you think it means.
 
...and also, yes. Yes you were.

if you have money ... (1)

snemiro (1775092) | more than 2 years ago | (#39200607)

You should share it with "la familia"....otherwise, you will be prosecuted ... Check out the guys who stole billions from investors in Wall Street....they share some the profit with the "authorities", and now they walk free.... So, the lesson is.....are you with "us" or a "terrorist for the system"?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...