×

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!

Mega Finds New Home, Dotcom Says

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the home-is-where-the-torrent-is dept.

Piracy 115

hypnosec writes "Kim Dotcom has revealed that Megaupload's successor, Mega, which is reportedly launching on January 20, 2013, will be operating through a new domain name: Mega.co.nz. Through a tweet Dotcom announced that Mega has found a new home and that the new domain name is protected by the law. Dotcom also revealed that lobbyists won't be able to do anything about this, as 'judges are not influenced by politics in New Zealand.' Recent announcements about Mega's domain — Me.ga — didn't go as planned following a decision by the Government of Gabon to suspend the domain name. Dotcom had announced at the time that despite the blockage, Mega would launch as planned."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

115 comments

Question - "Judges are not influenced by politics" (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957963)

Who sets the laws in the first place and who changes laws? (Don't say "the people" you'll be modded down as mental.)

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (4, Insightful)

Evardsson (959228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957999)

Who sets the laws in the first place and who changes laws? (Don't say "the people" you'll be modded down as mental.)

Everyone knows it's those with the cash.

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958153)

Cash
Rules
Everything
Around
Me.ga

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41960005)

CREAM get the money, dolla dolla bill ya'll!

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (4, Interesting)

e3m4n (947977) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958261)

no no no.. its called "The Golden Rule"

he who has the gold makes the rules

That's rather naive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958823)

Coercion makes the law. Gold and cash are merely tools that can be used to bribe coercive authority. It is coercion and coercion ONLY which gives authority to the law.

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41959121)

Simplistic lazy cynics like you do more damage than the plutocrats. You have a vote, you have freedom of speech. You're not powerless, but you pretend you are because it's the easier option.

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (2)

fnj (64210) | about a year and a half ago | (#41959809)

Simplistic lazy cynics like you do more damage than the plutocrats. You have a vote, you have freedom of speech. You're not powerless, but you pretend you are because it's the easier option.

I couldn't agree more, but there is a problem: there is no "voting public" in the sense of a single entity making rational, well informed decisions. In a land of one hundred million voters, each voter can only execute one hundred-millionth of a decision and maybe try to influence a handful more hundred-millionths through personal persuasion. A great many of those individuals naturally (but not stupidly) concentrate on one overriding issue each, and not the same issue as the next guy.

The ridiculously anthropomorphic concept of "the decision of the voters" is nonsensical. There are one hundred million disparate decisions, based on widely varying criteria, reasoning processes, and emotions. These separate decisions then combine mathematically to result in an incoherent selection of winners across the spectrum of offices being contested. The resulting selection rarely pleases a very large percentage of voters, as an inherent result of the process.

A modest proposal. In industry we found it necessary to develop a balance to the concentrated power of large employers by having the employees band together in unions to synthesize concentrations of power of their own. Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas? What if individual voters could sign up to hand over their voting proxies to these agents? It would be optional, just as proxies in the investment world are optional. It gets a bit messy, because you would need different systems of agents at the national, state, and local levels, but that does not really make it very difficult to administer.

These various agents would each publish their own agenda, argue their cases, and solicit their own supporters. They would of course be required to publish their voting histories, so prospective supporters could evaluate their integrity. The gain is that they would not have the massive incentive to lie, cheat, and game the system like candidates do now; and they would be more resistant to being lied to, cheated, and games by the candidates.

OK, the decision making in the government is already representative. Are we sure the decision making in the elective process would not benefit from also being made representative?

I'm sure there are counter arguments, aspects I have missed, and fine tuning required. Any takers?

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960949)

Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas?

It's called a political party.

Yes, I know the current party system is deeply flawed. But what you describe is the idea of political parties, plain and simple.

There is also a more modern system with a more fine-grained and fluid agency system like this, invented by the Pirate Party, called Liquid Democracy. GIYF.

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41965151)

Have you ever considered that you cynicism might be self fulfilling? Judging by the derisive statement about answering "the people", ciderbrew would presumably consider FDR to be mental:

It is time to provide a smashing answer for those cynical men who say that a Democracy cannot be honest and efficient. If you will help, this can be done. I, therefore, hope you will watch the work in every corner of this Nation. Feel free to criticize. Tell me of instances where work can be done better, or where improper practices prevail. Neither you nor I want criticism conceived in a purely fault-finding or partisan spirit, but I am jealous of the right of every citizen to call to the attention of his or her Government examples of how the public money can be more effectively spent for the benefit of the American people.

-Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re:Question - "Judges are not influenced by politi (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958109)

They are, in fact, heavily influenced by the personality of the defendant though. You know, like if someone seems remorseful or sincerely ignorant of a peculiar law or what their intent originally was, etc. Well, Dotcom is an arrogant, ego-maniacal jackass so that alone will lose him any court case anywhere ever.

Being sanguine about democracy (3, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958413)

Who sets the laws in the first place and who changes laws?

The politicians who receive the most votes.

That means "the people," through their delegates.

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958531)

No, it just means the delegates, supposedly representing the people. And we know perfectly well they haven't been representing the people for ages.

Classical Athens had a real democracy, where citizens voted directly on issues and policies. What we have now is not that. What we have now is engineered to give the public an illusion of power, not real power.

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (3, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958605)

Classical Athens had a real democracy, where citizens voted

For sufficiently unpoor and non-female values of "citizens".

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960901)

Point of thought: This system did have the advantage that the voters had the time, interest and education to actually care about what they were voting on.

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41965439)

Thanks to all the slaves who were actually doing the work.

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41959129)

I'd just like to take this opportunity to say I'm really glad we don't do everything by popular vote.

People are jackasses.

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about a year and a half ago | (#41959459)

I've been hearing that argument alot lately followed up with we should just go with a straight popular vote and everything will be better and the right candidates would be in office, ect ect..except it wouldn't have changed a thing about who was elected this go around and in most other election years in the U.S.

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#41961111)

"The public" have a great deal of power over government, individual voters don't, and yes, it was deliberately engineered to be that way. As for Ancient Greece, I don't know what your definition of "real democracy" is, but mine has the minimum requirement that it includes rather than excludes the majority of residents.

Re:Being sanguine about democracy (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958947)

You assume that voting is a reliable method for determining the will of the people. There are many, many, many reasons why it is not. These range from social reasons, like low voter turnout, to systemic mathematical flaws, like winner take all elections.

Mega Conz (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957967)

Mega CONZ... It's a TRAP! err, a Con!

Re:Mega Conz (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960873)

Wouldn't even be a surprised. He did get turned around by law enforcement back when they busted him the first (or was it second?) time in Germany, and sold out his "partners" before. So it's definitely not beyond him.

As for ME.GA, a museum wants it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41961189)

This is a real meesage received by a Gabon government web site. Only slightly anonymized. Too bad the government probably doesn't have enough humour to let these guys have the domain ...

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxx@m-e-g-a.org [mailto:xxxx@m-e-g-a.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:51 PM
To: xxxxxxx@cocom.rggov.org
Subject: Formulaire de contact en ligne COCOM

Données saisies en ligne par le visiteur:
IP Address : 80.150.xxx.xxx
Nom : Xxxxxx, Dxxxxx
Titre : Research / Preservation activities MEGA
Message : Dear ladies and gentlemen,

we read that you have taken away the internet domain "me.ga" from Kim Schmitz
due to illegal activities. We appreciate that step and kindly ask you to allow us
using that domain. Our association "MEGA - Museum of Electronic Games & Art"
is an international non-profit organization for preserving and making accessible
computer generated art of the last 5 decades. We have a successful network with
Italy and Brazil ensuring public access, research and knowledge transfer in the
fields of digital art and computer sciences. Transferring the Domain "me.ga" would
strengthen our non-profit activities in the world and could be a basis to also start
such activities in your countries.

Please read about our activities on http://m-e-g-a.org/ [m-e-g-a.org] and contact us via
museum@m-e-g-a.org or me via deft@m-e-g-a.org or detlef@hastik.de. Thank
you!

Best,
Dxxxxx Xxxxxx
MEGA - Museum of Electronic Games & Art

Email : xxxx@m-e-g-a.org

Launching Jan 20, 2012! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957971)

Seems like it is a bit belated.

Re:Launching Jan 20, 2012! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958091)

Also their privacy page still lists me.ga as the domain.

Re:Launching Jan 20, 2012! (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958123)

But don't worry, it's still going to launch on schedule! They promise!

Re:Launching Jan 20, 2012! (1)

e3m4n (947977) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958339)

this reminds me of that 1967 British comedy "At Last, the 1948 show" with some of the Monty Python crew (before they became monty python) which poked fun at the habit of the BBC of letting shows sit in the can years before finally airing them.

Re:Launching Jan 20, 2012! (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958837)

shows sit in the can years before finally airing them.

"if its yellow, let it mellow.
if its brown, flush it down."

(seen on a sign at a country hotel that had an, uhm, interesting bathroom setup. water conservation can be taken too far, sometimes).

not sure why I thought of this. but it is what it is.

Re:Launching Jan 20, 2012! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#41961223)

It's a common saying here in Oz, more so before half flush toilets became the norm. Here in Oz, if you don't take water rationing laws seriously in times of drought your neighbors will make sure your behavior is corrected.

Mega Cons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957987)

mega.co.nz => Mega Cons?

Re:Mega Cons? (3, Funny)

e3m4n (947977) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958357)

next thing you know its going to be a full fledged vegas convention with all kinds of weirdo's dressed in costume!

Huh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957995)

Looks like new zealand is thinking maybe being a bitch for the american entertainment industry isnt such a good deal.

Time to send in the lawyers again. maybe some 'sanctions' will happen too.

Can't have these countries thinking they can hide from hollywood.

Re:Huh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958363)

Poor timing, that. The AEI just won four more years in office.

time machine? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957997)

"..reportedly launching on January 20, 2012."

Re:time machine? (4, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958115)

We'll, it is reported to be launching on January 20, 2012. The report is just wrong.

Re:time machine? (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958649)

They're the wrong side of the international dateline, so time goes backwards, just like in Australia.

Or am I getting confused with the toilets?

Good luck with that! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958037)

I just looked up the Wikipedia article called "Internet censorship in New Zealand" and followed all the references.

All it will take to get this very easily shut down is a bit of deliberate seeding with kiddie porn, or making up something similar.

Absolutely will not work.

Judges' Influences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958039)

"Judges are not influenced by politics in New Zealand"

I wonder how long it will last now...

The date is wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958063)

Doesnt that mean to say 1/1/2013?

Re:The date is wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41960577)

! [xkcd.com]





--
lame filter is lame

Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (4, Insightful)

jtnix (173853) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958165)

Despite all that has been said on this particular topic, I wonder why this is news is classified with a skull and crossbones, not under YRO, and tagged as piracy.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958319)

Because he is a scammer that got caught for piracy. He is not a freedom fighter.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960831)

Because he is a scammer that got caught for piracy. He is not a freedom fighter.

Okay US Government shill. If you say so, repeatedly, under anonymous coward, then it must be true!!!

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958341)

Because Kimble was a famous pirate in the early/mid 90s (Romkids), who narced on BBS when he got caught carding. He then ran a bunch of investment scams, got busted in Germany and Hong Kong. Moved onto New Zealand after burning those bridges, ran a site that gave rewards and turned a blind eye to piracy of everything under the sun. No idea what his next venture is going to be, but the man is a pirate by reputation.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41959981)

Because Kimble was a famous pirate in the early/mid 90s (Romkids), who narced on BBS when he got caught carding. He then ran a bunch of investment scams, got busted in Germany and Hong Kong. Moved onto New Zealand after burning those bridges, ran a site that gave rewards and turned a blind eye to piracy of everything under the sun. No idea what his next venture is going to be, but the man is a pirate by reputation.

When battling against a cabal of scoundrels (US govt/copyright cartel), another scoundrel is the perfect weapon, or at least one of the only effective weapons, since the cabal controls the legitimate channels already.

Gotham police would jail Batman in a heartbeat too if they could.

Strat

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960833)

When battling against a cabal of scoundrels (US govt/copyright cartel), another scoundrel is the perfect weapon,

That's what the US thought about the Taliban and Al Qaeda back when they were fighting the russians. Turned out to be not the smartest of ideas.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41961567)

When battling against a cabal of scoundrels (US govt/copyright cartel), another scoundrel is the perfect weapon,

That's what the US thought about the Taliban and Al Qaeda back when they were fighting the russians. Turned out to be not the smartest of ideas.

Yes, because one guy running an upload website is exactly like a population of violent, oppressive, religious fanatics.

Well, except that Kim plans on providing uploaders with an encrypted "burqa" for their data. :)

Strat

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960975)

Because Kimble was a famous pirate in the early/mid 90s (Romkids), who narced on BBS when he got caught carding. He then ran a bunch of investment scams, got busted in Germany and Hong Kong. Moved onto New Zealand after burning those bridges, ran a site that gave rewards and turned a blind eye to piracy of everything under the sun. No idea what his next venture is going to be, but the man is a pirate by reputation.

So what? You butthurt because he narc'd on you? Or did you invest in his investments? Because no one gives a fuck about that shit, at all. What is on the table is his Megaupload site, and the fact that without it going to trial, the USA managed to get him out of business and even copies of his data, which wasn't legally theirs to take. Not to mention so far that it appears that the RIAA and MIAA convinced politicians that they have close ties to (namely, they pay off) to go above the law in bringing megaupload down.

So no matter how much you bring up the past, it doesn't change that the USA Government overstepped their bounds at the request of some corporations. Now the USA is scared to bring it to court because it's going to be embarrassing for some key political figures, like the vice president.

And yes, Mr. Shill, you should be scared.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41961621)

Actually, quite a lot of people in Germany do give a fuck about the millions that he scammed from them (and has never even suggested he'd pay back). But don't let mere facts get in the way of your self-centered rant.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#41965329)

Each time a Dotcom story comes up we get exactly the same type of post from an AC, so he obviously was hit personally by the guy.

But the problem is he's obviously very biased against him, if you read what Dotcom was actually guilty of then much of it is not that big a deal. Where he was done for fraud for example he really did nothing different to what many investment organisations get away with every day, his problem is that he was a little guy with no government links to allow him to get away with it unlike the large investment organisations.

People lose money all the time on the stock market getting duped on bad deals, they have to - that's how others make their profit. This guy needs to get over it, it's tiresome.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958965)

Why is there a seperate category for piracy at all? Piracy is an online rights issue. Copyright is a limitation on free speech.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (2)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960803)

Copyright is a limitation on free speech.

Idiot.

Copyright is the right of the creator to his own works of art (words or otherwise). By definition, you own the copyright for your own words. Thus, your Free Speech is protected by, not limited by copyright.

Putting someone elses words through the printing press to distribute them is not Free Speech. Doing it with your own words is legal.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960987)

Putting someone elses words through the printing press to distribute them is not Free Speech.

So when I say

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.",

that's not free speech?

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41965195)

Copyright is a limitation on free speech.

Idiot.

Copyright is the right of the creator to his own works of art (words or otherwise). By definition, you own the copyright for your own words. Thus, your Free Speech is protected by, not limited by copyright.

Putting someone elses words through the printing press to distribute them is not Free Speech. Doing it with your own words is legal.

It's you that's the idiot here, if anyone.

Any form of expression is free speech. Just look up modern rulings on pornography for instance. There's no originality clause so repeating what others have said is equal to saying it yourself. So making a pornographic movie is clearly free speech, which means that copying it is also free speech. Copyright is censorship and a restriction on free speech, and thus actually a human rights violation.

How to protect the livelihood of people creating original content? - Well, not by inventing artificial rules and boundaries, add laws and then hunting down those that actually like these creations, that's for sure. A much better idea would be to sell enhanced copies (like a CD or a DVD) so people have the choice of free downloads or pay for something to collect. There are lots of options if they chose to reward those that pay instead of criminalizing those that don't.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958987)

Piracy topic tagged piracy? I wonder why.

Re:Under the Piracy category, huh Slashdot? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960809)

Despite all that has been said on this particular topic, I wonder why this is news is classified with a skull and crossbones, not under YRO, and tagged as piracy.

Because stupid people think megaupload was just about piracy, the smart people understand it wasn't about piracy, though people use it to make money via piracy. And guess what? Those same people use other sites currently. So Megaupload wasn't a cause of piracy at all, it was just a vehicle that was used. Because if it was the cause, then piracy would of stopped when it went down, no?

New Zealand is a good place (3, Funny)

tokul (682258) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958167)

New Zealand is a good place to start new business after your business is destroyed by your arrest which occurred on some Pacific country. Could you remind me in which country you were arrested, Kim?

Re:New Zealand is a good place (5, Insightful)

MadCow42 (243108) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958621)

And if you followed the story, his bust in NZ was NOT above board. The FBI coerced them into doing it, and taking many many shortcuts and liberties along the way, embarrassing the hell out of the NZ government and police. I'd say it's a safe bet they won't do that again. If he does get taken down again, it'll be much more carefully and LEGALLY done - and Kim I'm sure is taking close care to not step over that line (although he's mighty close to it).

Mega is different because all the content is client-side encrypted before being uploaded. Mega specifically has no access to the content or ability to filter it, and hence no responsibility for it. I'm sure they'll comply with takedown notices too. The liability is on the user, as it should be - otherwise the Cloud business model is already dead.

MadCow.

Re:New Zealand is a good place (0)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960707)

and Kim I'm sure is taking close care to not step over that line (although he's mighty close to it).

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Kim was taken down many, many years back in Germany and in response sold out to law enforcement and worked for them as a snitch for a while.

Are you ready to bet your liberty on that not happening again? I know I will never touch any of his enterprises with a 10-foot pole, but in this case I'll stay away a lot further. It just smells "trap" way too much.

Re:New Zealand is a good place (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#41961561)

This creates and interesting problem for a large cloud datastorage provider. Namely if everything if encrypted, compression will cease to be effective. Also it effectively eliminates the ability to run data deduplication on all the storage leading to far higher storage costs.

Re:New Zealand is a good place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41962199)

That's an interesting response - because deduplication is one (but not all) of the issues that is being used against Kim. The complaint basically went "we asked for file X, linked to by url Y, to be removed - which you complied with. However you didn't remove any other copies of file X that were on your servers.

So, the question raised is, when presented with a DCMA notice, is a cloud storage provider required to delete the de-duplicated file itself, or just the stated link to the file?.

Re:New Zealand is a good place (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963203)

It's a catch 22.

If you refuse to delete all copies, the feds can hang you.

if you delete all copies, your innocent users can hang you.

The feds knew damn well they were abusing a technical loophole to nail megaupload.

Re:New Zealand is a good place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41961779)

Even so, the fact that the bust happened suggests that someone in power is affected by politics in NZ.

"Judges are not influenced by politics in New ..." (1)

Green Light (32766) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958347)

They are, however, influenced by copyright law, I am sure.

Re:"Judges...", BUT (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958433)

If everything is encrypted, how can Mega.co.nz be anything but a storage container of unknown files?

Re:"Judges...", BUT (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960771)

If they do know, for example because they are knowingly inviting copyrighted content, as the internal e-mails show they did for Megaupload.

Basically, the same way you can be convicted of murder even if you get rid of the weapon and the body. Circumstancial evidence.

bla bla bla (0, Troll)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958483)

Now /. has degenerated into a paid-for hype-machine for a vaporware product whose sole purpose is to keep a megalomaniac in the news.

Congratulations. I hope you got paid in escort girls or something else worth it. Now how about some actual news, and leaving the verbatim-copying of press releases to the newspapers?

Re:bla bla bla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958731)

You seem to show up in every article related to Kim Dotcom just so you can insult him, insult the article, or remark on how horrible it was that he allowed people to copy files. It's pathetic, really.

Tom (822) (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41959883)

u must be new here

A great day for piracy (-1, Troll)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958721)

A great day for piracy and the people who invent pseudophilosophical justifications to rationalize and justify it.

user "jinx" pretends this is a YRO issue and not a piracy issue. it is a piracy issue. we all know it is a piracy issue. but no, here comes the sanctimonious rights talk smoke and mirrors FUD. Anything, but anything to avoid seriously discussing the real matter. Go on--get on your soapbox. Pretend this is a Issue of Major Human and Civil Rights Importance. I know you will.

How much is he paying for this advertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41959413)

Could slashdot please stop advertising this person? (or at least add some stance like

Dotcom (formerly known as Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Kimble (used that names until he was convicted for fraudulently ripping of inventors I think), formerly knows as Kim Schmitz (used that name till he had made himself a total fool in Germany when pretending to be a "hacker").

We are happy enough he left the country after everyone knew he was a criminal wannabe, please do not mention him in internationally read news.

Thanks in advance...

Kim Dotnz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41959673)

What are the odds that he will change his name again?

Governments can do whatever the hell they want (5, Informative)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about a year and a half ago | (#41959995)

Back in 2003, I built the world's first DIY cruise missile in a garage here in New Zealand.

When the media found out, they approached the government for comment and the Prime MInister of the day (Helen Clark) admitted that in doing this, I had broken no laws.

Well when the US government found out what I'd been doing they were outraged and intense pressure was applied to the NZ government to shut down this low-cost-cruise-missile project.

But how could they do that? -- after all, the PM had admitted I'd broken no laws in doing so.

Well as we all (now) know, governments can do any damned thing they want and if they can't achieve their ends by fair means, they'll use foul ones.

As a result, they "Caponed" me and used the NZ equivalent of the IRS to bankrupt me by coming up with all manner of "assessed" tax liabilities and breaching an agreement I already had in place.

A local TV current affairs program did a piece on my plight:

Part 1 [youtube.com]
Part 2 [youtube.com]

and you can see from that, just how governments are able to sidestep or force the courts to do whatever they want -- when there's an agenda involved.

So Kim Dotcom ought to be very careful -- who knows what a savage dog will do when you back it into a corner?

I've written a book about this chapter (and others) of my life but suffice to say I have had some issues with publishers who don't want to get involved in a case where it's obvious that the rulebook gets tossed out the door in favor of covering asses at high levels.

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (1)

santax (1541065) | about a year and a half ago | (#41960325)

Oh that was you? I have read a lot about it at the time (Netherlands here) and I just wanted to say... Awesome dude! But I'm sure glad you aren't my neighbour! (ps, next stop, your own nuclear submarine?)

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#41961025)

...

I've written a book about this chapter (and others) of my life but suffice to say I have had some issues with publishers who don't want to get involved in a case where it's obvious that the rulebook gets tossed out the door in favor of covering asses at high levels.

This is the Internet dude, self publish. Make a ebook and put it on amazon, they aren't that picky are they?

I bet the new Mega would be glad to publish that book for ya. Seriously, I bet if Kim knew, he'd be down to talk with you.

Re: Caponed := ``castrated'' (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41961221)

had to look that one up: Capon:

A capon is a rooster that has been castrated to improve the quality of its flesh for food [wikipedia.org] I just hope you meant just the castrated part, and not that they also sliced and diced you for a tastier meal afterwards, mate! ;)

.

Impressive home rocketry project. I'd like to read your book or book drafts. Do you have it on your web-site in HTML or PDF form? Can they use an injunction to stop you from publishing about your project and your experiences, or do they have strong "freedom of speech" laws in NZ?

And as for KimDotCom, you already know what NZ would do: bow to the wishes of the MPAA/RIAA speaking through the government of the USA's DOJ and military branches as the communiqu(e-accented)s via the USA embassy in NZ show the complicity of the US govt in the raid on KimDotCom.

Re: Caponed := ``castrated'' (1)

Murasaki Skies (894086) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962425)

Caponed != ``castrated'', but is = "Al Capone"d (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41963025)

Okay, yeah, I see it. But Capone actually broke laws but they couldn't find the evidence for it, so they got him on the tax charges. NZman was specifically told he did not/was not breaking any laws. But yeah, he probably meant Al Capone.

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41961255)

So sorry that happened too you. Your very right though if you don't have every i dotted every t crossed they'll f you in the a, and then even if you do in most cases they'll still invent some way to f you, laws be damned.

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (1)

toQDuj (806112) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962745)

Yea, I seem to remember that. You were the guy making pipe engines, which were inefficient but interesting...

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (1)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962913)

Yeah... big ones [youtube.com] and smaller ones [youtube.com] .

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (1)

toQDuj (806112) | about a year and a half ago | (#41964135)

Yea, I remember those. Was thinking of getting some when I was young, I may have even contacted you back then. They'd look awesome on my recumbent, but for safety's sake, I think I shouldn't :)

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year and a half ago | (#41964505)

I've written a book about this chapter (and others) of my life but suffice to say I have had some issues with publishers who don't want to get involved in a case where it's obvious that the rulebook gets tossed out the door in favor of covering asses at high levels.

You should look into self-publishing it online -- a growing number of professional mainstream authors and hobbyists (like retro-technology historians) have started taking that route for projects that couldn't get a major publisher's backing. If you put it up on Amazon or Smashwords for a reasonable fee and submit a Slashdot story about it, you'd probably also make a pretty tidy sum of money.

Re:Governments can do whatever the hell they want (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#41965461)

Maybe you should've 'delivered' some samples of your products into the Beehive directly so that the law makers could 'examine' them close up?

Secure anonymous storage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41961415)

Maybe he should be looking at the Philippines, perhaps funding the venture with salvaged WWII gold.

It's not going to matter. (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962227)

DNS is the weakest link of his service. If you can't find it, you can't use it. In fact, it's the weakest link of every website. Take out the DNS entry, and the site practically goes dark for the masses.

And while the NZ government might not raid his home anymore, they can easily take away any of the domain names he owns by "losing" his registration.

He might as well buy his own gTLD and see how long that'll last.

Kim's Problem - Bad Marketing (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41962489)

See, Kim is just presenting it (Mega service) all wrong.

He should have told the US govt. he was simply offering "digital burqas" for user's data.

He might have even secured aid from the State Dept.

Or NASA, since now "Muslim outreach" is a major goal for NASA according to Charlie Bolden, NASA chief administrator.

To function/exist/succeed under repressive regimes, any product/service/etc must be presented from the viewpoint of how that product/service/etc glorifies and serves the ideological tenants and dogma of the regime and the regime's leaders. A product/service/etc that openly mocks the regime and/or the leaders and ideological/legal tenants and dogma, especially by showing how ridiculous, impractical, and harmful they are, will be met by efforts to suppress and eliminate it and those behind it that will not be limited on the regime's behalf to any imagined or pretended "limits" on it's powers written on some old piece of parchment, because there will be no consequences as the citizens have become domesticated, pacified/controlled by a militarized police force and domestic intelligence/covert ops, and indoctrinated from kindergarten up.

Strat

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...