U.S. Government Wins Millions From Kim Dotcom

Disposed said:
Name one single example.
Click to expand...

Berne Convention, look it up. This stuff has been going on since the 1800s. Also in case you are interested, New Zealand joined the international copyright protection scene before the United States.

grtitan said:
Let me guess, is this your house?

100_0441.jpg
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with patriotism, it has to do with law. Any country would prosecute someone who leaked secrets from their country, especially when the country has strict laws about such things.

Whether one likes it or approves of it, it is the law. People breaking the law receive punishment. Both cases are individuals breaking the law. I can certainly understand people not liking the law or how it is applied in either case. But what is not up for debate is that the law was broken. Also, in both cases, these things have happened before and been prosecuted before. So neither one is truly unique.
 
dandragonrage said:
The fact of the matter is that he ran a site for sharing files, many of which were 100% legal. The US government (ATF department for example) can traffick illegal weapons and lose track of them and not get in trouble. Banks like HSBC can launder money. And there are lots of violent criminals on the loose in general. Yet they spend their time and money going after someone who ran a website. Might as well seize all the assets of everyone's ISP as well for the same reason.

How about you stop listening to what politicians tell you and actually start using your brain? Politicians will tell you anything is illegal if it benefits them. Yet they don't mention that the things THEY do are illegal and the laws THEY pass are invalid in the first place. Congress keeps trying to override the Constitution by passing laws to make this and that illegal but they don't have the authority to override the Constitution with laws in the first place making many of these "illegal" things still legal. But while they lack authority, they do not lack the power to punish you if you don't obey their invalid laws.

Even if you want to argue that Dotcom did something illegal which I dispute in the first place, any rational human being would agree that the US really went too far in what they've done to him, and NZ's politicians either puppets and/or spineless for allowing it.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. If I own a business and "many" of the products I sell are legal, then it should be fine that I sell a number of illegal products as well? Or in this case, I own a warehouse. I sell access to said warehouse. Many of the things in the warehouse are legal, but there are some that are not. So its totally okay with me selling access to people housing and distributing illegal goods through my warehouse?

If there is a law stating the government can do it, then how is it illegal? For it to be illegal there would have to be a law preventing the government from doing it. If you think what the government is doing is illegal, then vote your mind and elect politicians who will repeal such laws giving the government that control.

Any 'rational' person would also realize that someone who committed a crime according to the government, would then be pursued by that government. Kim Dot Com profitted greatly off his business, part of which conducted illegal distribution of copyrighted goods. Is the forfeiture and punishment commensurate to the crime? No. Should it be? No. If it was commensurate, then what would deter someone from committing the crime?

Now if you are going to ask me if I think what the government did is fair, that is a different question. I am not really a fan of civil forfeiture to begin with. But I am not going to act like Kim Dot Com is somehow innocent in all of this either. He has made some very poor choices leading up to and since the start of this whole case.
 
NoOther said:
Let me get this straight. If I own a business and "many" of the products I sell are legal, then it should be fine that I sell a number of illegal products as well? Or in this case, I own a warehouse. I sell access to said warehouse. Many of the things in the warehouse are legal, but there are some that are not. So its totally okay with me selling access to people housing and distributing illegal goods through my warehouse?

If there is a law stating the government can do it, then how is it illegal? For it to be illegal there would have to be a law preventing the government from doing it.
Click to expand...

He wasn't selling illegal goods. It was just a place for people to store their own files. Period. ISPs are just as responsible as MU was. And any claims that he paid people to store files illegally are just ridiculous and unproven. It's well-known that the US government invents any evidence it needs to make itself look better. This is not a case of someone stealing and selling copies. It's a case of someone offering a service which was used for what it is. Might as well sue Google because Gmail and Youtube have been used for piracy. Might as well sue Comcast because they don't block piracy.

As for laws, there are rules to how they work. It often isn't just a case of Congress convening and deciding that the laws in the country aren't dumb enough. They act like it is, but any time a law violates the Constitution, it is automatically invalid. They cannot override or amend the Constitution with their regular laws. It requires a Convention of States to do that which is a huge pain in the ass BY DESIGN. Also as I said before, invalid laws are always invalid. The claims of modern-day politicians that all laws are valid until the Supreme Court strikes them down are also invalid. The Constitution didn't put the Supreme Court in this position and that's not how the system was intended to work. Politicians claim otherwise only because the Supreme Court is not used for justice but is rather tasked with inventing excuses that the law is doing whatever it is. When is a law not a law? When it's invalid. Period.

And there are many things that simply aren't subject to laws in the first place. I don't mean stealing in that particular case, but smoking anything would be a good example.

But in any case Kim Dotcom can't reasonably be convicted of stealing here. I don't think the guy was some sort of gift to mankind, either, believe me. But I don't see any justice or fairness in the way his case was handled.
 
NoOther said:
If you think what the government is doing is illegal, then vote your mind and elect politicians who will repeal such laws giving the government that control.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that tidbit, I'm surprised we all haven't thought about that option before. I'm quite sure that will help, a lot! Makes me wonder why we the people still haven't cleaned up this system over the last 50-100 years. It should be as simple as voting, in a perfect world. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that politicians can say anything and flip flop on anything they claim they'll do once in office. Oh yeah, it also takes big money to run and big money has (private) demands...:rolleyes:

Until we have an informed/educated (majority) populace, honest news reporting on important topics, and the power of direct democracy, voting will always favor the monied classes. After all that is exactly the purpose (design) of this system, to protect the rich from the middle class and poor.

Banks steal = fine
You steal = Prison
Why? Money

And last time I checked the poor and middle class don't have a lot of it. So fuck that nonsense that voting does much of anything when it was never supposed to in the first place. Being in the positions of power does everything, asking for them to represent you gets you scraps here and there if enough people cry about it. Odds are still rigged though. At the end of the day politicians are put there to be your bottleneck.
 
dandragonrage said:
He wasn't selling illegal goods. It was just a place for people to store their own files. Period. ISPs are just as responsible as MU was. And any claims that he paid people to store files illegally are just ridiculous and unproven. It's well-known that the US government invents any evidence it needs to make itself look better. This is not a case of someone stealing and selling copies. It's a case of someone offering a service which was used for what it is. Might as well sue Google because Gmail and Youtube have been used for piracy. Might as well sue Comcast because they don't block piracy.

As for laws, there are rules to how they work. It often isn't just a case of Congress convening and deciding that the laws in the country aren't dumb enough. They act like it is, but any time a law violates the Constitution, it is automatically invalid. They cannot override or amend the Constitution with their regular laws. It requires a Convention of States to do that which is a huge pain in the ass BY DESIGN. Also as I said before, invalid laws are always invalid. The claims of modern-day politicians that all laws are valid until the Supreme Court strikes them down are also invalid. The Constitution didn't put the Supreme Court in this position and that's not how the system was intended to work. Politicians claim otherwise only because the Supreme Court is not used for justice but is rather tasked with inventing excuses that the law is doing whatever it is. When is a law not a law? When it's invalid. Period.

And there are many things that simply aren't subject to laws in the first place. I don't mean stealing in that particular case, but smoking anything would be a good example.

But in any case Kim Dotcom can't reasonably be convicted of stealing here. I don't think the guy was some sort of gift to mankind, either, believe me. But I don't see any justice or fairness in the way his case was handled.
Click to expand...

So again, let's revisit this. Given your theory, the US government highway system is at fault for allowing vehicles carrying illegal goods to traverse their roads... Just as guilty as the person who is literally housing the illegal goods and making it possible to conduct the illegal transactions... And who is also charging a fee for this service.

" And any claims that he paid people to store files illegally are just ridiculous and unproven."
Click to expand...

So when they found illegal copyrighted material on the Megaupload servers, which Kim Dot Com charged people money to access, it was all fake?

Kim Dot Com can reasonably be convicted of stealing. He sold storage to users who then stored copyrighted goods. He was an accessory and facilitator to the crime. Whether you disagree with the laws that are there, how they came to be, or how they are being applied, they are still the laws. Until such time as the Supreme Court or some international convention steps in and says the government has gone too far, there actions will remain legal.
 
So if someone rented a storage unit from some company and filled it with illegal weapons, the owner of the storage unit is responsible for facilitating the trade of illegal weapons? Not only that, they received money for renting out the storage unit.
 
NoOther said:
So again, let's revisit this. Given your theory, the US government highway system is at fault for allowing vehicles carrying illegal goods to traverse their roads... Just as guilty as the person who is literally housing the illegal goods and making it possible to conduct the illegal transactions... And who is also charging a fee for this service.
Click to expand...

I'd wager, yes, as the US GOV itself has been bringing drugs into this country.

Kim Dot Com can reasonably be convicted of stealing.
Click to expand...
So could the US GOV.

Double standards though and all that BS.
 
dandragonrage said:
So if someone rented a storage unit from some company and filled it with illegal weapons, the owner of the storage unit is responsible for facilitating the trade of illegal weapons? Not only that, they received money for renting out the storage unit.
Click to expand...

Actually yes, they can be. It all depends on the circumstances. In Kim Dot Com's case, he knew about he illegal activity on his servers and even profited by it himself.
 
NoOther said:
Then prosecute them for it, and every other country that does the same. You can take the US government to court if you want.
Click to expand...

"The government still uses the threat of damage to national security to get legitimate constitutional claims blocked in court," Rumold said. "Snowden's disclosures have absolutely changed the playing field, but the playing field is not level." - Source
Click to expand...

National security, national security, everywhere.
 
Germanium said:
National security, national security, everywhere.
Click to expand...

So make a case that the Kim Dot Com situation is not a matter of national security. You will never get that with Snowden, because it is in point of fact, a clear cut case of national security.
 
NoOther said:
So make a case that the Kim Dot Com situation is not a matter of national security. You will never get that with Snowden, because it is in point of fact, a clear cut case of national security.
Click to expand...

If the government had nothing to fear they'd have nothing to hide. Only criminals want privacy.
 
Germanium said:
If the government had nothing to fear they'd have nothing to hide. Only criminals want privacy.
Click to expand...

That is a faulty statement. Plenty of innocent people want privacy. The government wants privacy because it needs to protect it's people from attacks domestic and foreign. If you are advertising your plans to defend yourself, then the enemy knows in what ways they can get through. Do you post your bank passwords, email passwords, credit card information etc all online for anyone to see?
 
NoOther said:
That is a faulty statement. Plenty of innocent people want privacy. The government wants privacy because it needs to protect it's people from attacks domestic and foreign. If you are advertising your plans to defend yourself, then the enemy knows in what ways they can get through. Do you post your bank passwords, email passwords, credit card information etc all online for anyone to see?
Click to expand...

The government wants privacy because all of the NSA, DHS and other activities are clearly and blatantly illegal under the Constitution. Also the PATRIOT Act and everything like it are illegal, cannot override/amend the Constitution since they weren't done via Convention of States, and the government wants to protect that. The only things that shouldn't be public are current troop locations and such. The vast majority of what Snowden uncovered not only didn't threaten our safety but legally needed to be made public anyway via the Freedom of Information Act.

This is off-topic at this point but one should never miss an opportunity to smack down insane statists.
 
NoOther said:
Do you post your bank passwords, email passwords, credit card information etc all online for anyone to see?
Click to expand...

That's just basic security for anyone, even non-government. The actual problem is they're hiding what should be public information from the people under the guise of national security (TPP). Is there anything that they can't refuse to tell us by stating it's national security? I don't think so. Nice extreme example though. I also don't tell people when I wipe my ass but that's besides the point.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hite-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/

A government doesn't need to hide everything from us (no one is saying to keep your passwords on sticky notes) and the rest of the world to protect us, they need to do it to fuck us over and have no repercussions for their actions. Obama even ran on implementing greater government transparency (because he knew we want that) and then threw it right out the fucking window when he got into office. Sound like a typical politician? Who to vote for, who to vote for...oh, that guy!!!

Yeah, good thing a lot us all voted, made a huge difference (Banks got richer and richer under every Pres....all while committing crimes poor people would go to jail for). We got change, mandatory healthcare and continuous wars and continuous internal inflation (when not worrying about the rest of the world, like, our money and our time). Governments are of little difference than kingdoms were thousands of years ago. The rich feast at the expense of the poor and middle class outside the walls barely making it while working to death.

We live in a country that went from only one person needing to work to maintain a proper family to a country where three* parents need to work (yes, inflation is so great) to survive and barely make ends meet. Then, if they want to, the government can just come in and take all of your shit in a civil forfeiture even when no crime has been committed.

Yes, the greatest country on Earth. Hah! My asshole it is. This is how I feel about America.
 
Germanium said:
That's just basic security for anyone, even non-government. The actual problem is they're hiding what should be public information from the people under the guise of national security (TPP). Is there anything that they can't refuse to tell us by stating it's national security? I don't think so. Nice extreme example though. I also don't tell people when I wipe my ass but that's besides the point.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hite-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/

A government doesn't need to hide everything from us (no one is saying to keep your passwords on sticky notes) and the rest of the world to protect us, they need to do it to fuck us over and have no repercussions for their actions. Obama even ran on implementing greater government transparency (because he knew we want that) and then threw it right out the fucking window when he got into office. Sound like a typical politician? Who to vote for, who to vote for...oh, that guy!!!

Yeah, good thing a lot us all voted, made a huge difference (Banks got richer and richer under every Pres....all while committing crimes poor people would go to jail for). We got change, mandatory healthcare and continuous wars and continuous internal inflation (when not worrying about the rest of the world, like, our money and our time). Governments are of little difference than kingdoms were thousands of years ago. The rich feast at the expense of the poor and middle class outside the walls barely making it while working to death.

We live in a country that went from only one person needing to work to maintain a proper family to a country where three* parents need to work (yes, inflation is so great) to survive and barely make ends meet. Then, if they want to, the government can just come in and take all of your shit in a civil forfeiture even when no crime has been committed.

Yes, the greatest country on Earth. Hah! My asshole it is. This is how I feel about America.
Click to expand...

It's not just an extreme example, many of the documents that Snowden stole contained serious security risks. They contained playbooks and defenses against foreign cyber attacks. They contained outlines for cyber defense perimeters, procedures and policies. There was also a lot of PII in what he stole. So no, what he did was not really altruistic, it was illegal in both the sense of national security and civil security.

You flailing your arms and saying we are all f'd is not productive. You saying no one has a say is not productive. Clearly people do have some say because there has been great change in the country before. The problem is you sit here eating cheetos and yelling at a computer screen with faux rage over incidents that are more clear cut than you try to make them out to be. Instead you could be out doing something about it, but you don't.
 
dandragonrage said:
The government wants privacy because all of the NSA, DHS and other activities are clearly and blatantly illegal under the Constitution. Also the PATRIOT Act and everything like it are illegal, cannot override/amend the Constitution since they weren't done via Convention of States, and the government wants to protect that. The only things that shouldn't be public are current troop locations and such. The vast majority of what Snowden uncovered not only didn't threaten our safety but legally needed to be made public anyway via the Freedom of Information Act.

This is off-topic at this point but one should never miss an opportunity to smack down insane statists.
Click to expand...

This is so wrong and inaccurate as to be laughable. You take a few programs within the entire NSA and try to make that sound like the mainstream. Even a lot of the information released by Snowden wasn't evidence of illegal activity by the NSA. At most it was stretching boundaries. And most of what is being done is no different than any other country out there with similar means.

As for what things should be public or not, there are tons of things that should not be public. Cyber defense should not be public. Attack capabilities should be public. Pilot programs and response plans should not be public. Certain satellite positions should not be public. Foreign assets and information gathering programs should not be public (whether you like spying or not, all countries do it and its necessary for getting information on potential threats). PII should not be public. Among many, many other things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top