Megaupload Paid Pirates Thousands In Rewards

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
During Kim Dotcom's extradition hearing, the prosecution claims that Megaupload knowingly paid out tons of money to pirates.

In a rewards program that lasted five years, Megaupload paid out more than $3m to users who uploaded content the site. One of those was paid more than $50,000, despite having more than 1,200 takedown notices filed against his account, the U.S. claims. Countering, lawyers for Kim Dotcom says its unfair those users' identities are being kept secret.
 
It's hard to support either side of this since both have acted so terrible. Can't they just both lose?
 
Spidey329 said:
The counter-argument seems more like a tantrum than an actual defense
Click to expand...

Yup, while perfectly valid to say you can't keep your evidence sources a secret, to say it's "unfair" makes me think that his lawyer really doesn't understand how the law works.
 
Spidey329 said:
The counter-argument seems more like a tantrum than an actual defense
Click to expand...

Bullshit. How would YOU like to have you assets frozen and face extradition for ALLEGEDLY (as in not a single evidence) breaking law in a country you never even visited.

If nz allow this to happen it would set a terrible precedent, then truly no one will be safe.
 
Misleading title, the autonomous payout system paid people for interest in their content.

Making the system seem like it targeted and rewarded pirates specifically is not good.
 
Mega is by far the best file sharing website I have used. No ads, and fantastic download speeds.

He's a modern day Robin Hood! (half joking.....half)
 
dgz said:
Bullshit. How would YOU like to have you assets frozen and face extradition for ALLEGEDLY (as in not a single evidence) breaking law in a country you never even visited.

If nz allow this to happen it would set a terrible precedent, then truly no one will be safe.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, megaupload had to have made 99% of it's subscription revenue from users of warez sites who needed to download content that was compressed into parts and avoid the max number of file downloads per day.
 
Kalabalana said:
Misleading title, the autonomous payout system paid people for interest in their content.

Making the system seem like it targeted and rewarded pirates specifically is not good.
Click to expand...

But the question remains should they be rewarding people for interest in "their content" when it's been shown, time and again, that the content they are uploading doesn't belong to them?

Sure I could see the first few times slipping through the cracks, but after awhile it's obvious.
 
dgz said:
Bullshit. How would YOU like to have you assets frozen and face extradition for ALLEGEDLY (as in not a single evidence) breaking law in a country you never even visited.

If nz allow this to happen it would set a terrible precedent, then truly no one will be safe.
Click to expand...

Safe? Why should someone who provided a service and encouraged people to share stuff illegally be "safe" from having to deal with criminal consequences for doing so just because they're hiding in another nation from the people and companies they're stealing from?

Besides that, extradition is kinda an existing precedent so there's really nothing new here except that the person who got in trouble has history's stupidest legal name change.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Safe? Why should someone who provided a service and encouraged people to share stuff illegally be "safe" from having to deal with criminal consequences for doing so just because they're hiding in another nation from the people and companies they're stealing from?

Besides that, extradition is kinda an existing precedent so there's really nothing new here except that the person who got in trouble has history's stupidest legal name change.
Click to expand...

Because countries should not be strong-armed into allowing the kidnapping of people other countries don't like. Kim Dotcom did not do anything wrong, other than the personal mistake of setting up his service in a country that has a treaty that says they allows some other countries to legally kidnap people they don't like. Piracy should not be a crime. The US should get their asses out of other countries.
 
rabidz7 said:
Because countries should not be strong-armed into allowing the kidnapping of people other countries don't like. Kim Dotcom did not do anything wrong, other than the personal mistake of setting up his service in a country that has a treaty that says they allows some other countries to legally kidnap people they don't like. Piracy should not be a crime. The US should get their asses out of other countries.
Click to expand...

If there's a legally created treaty, how is this a strong arm thing-y or a kidnapping? Everyone knows where he is...just follow the trail of burrito crumbs and look for the fat, stinky basement dweller with the Call of Duty addiction when you get to the end of it. He's RIGHT THERE, where everyone can see him and no one is holding him for ransom or anything so kidnapping is hardly the right word to use. Neither is "strong-armed" unless you're trying to find emotionally-loaded terminology to convince yourself and everyone else that this is a bad thing by appealing to everything but rational thought.

Piracy is a crime. So what if you think it shouldn't be? You're nobody and the people with money and power have decided that it's a criminal act so deal with it. He's been accused of being responsible for bribing others to perform illegal acts so he needs to be brought to the US, given a trial, and if he's found guilty, he should suffer the consequences for it just like anyone else.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
If there's a legally created treaty, how is this a strong arm thing-y or a kidnapping? Everyone knows where he is...just follow the trail of burrito crumbs and look for the fat, stinky basement dweller with the Call of Duty addiction when you get to the end of it. He's RIGHT THERE, where everyone can see him and no one is holding him for ransom or anything so kidnapping is hardly the right word to use. Neither is "strong-armed" unless you're trying to find emotionally-loaded terminology to convince yourself and everyone else that this is a bad thing by appealing to everything but rational thought.

Piracy is a crime. So what if you think it shouldn't be? You're nobody and the people with money and power have decided that it's a criminal act so deal with it. He's been accused of being responsible for bribing others to perform illegal acts so he needs to be brought to the US, given a trial, and if he's found guilty, he should suffer the consequences for it just like anyone else.
Click to expand...

The US has no right to interfere with other countries. They use their power to force other nations into submission. Look at Syria or Cuba. The US lists them as "state sponsors to terrorism", with terrorism being "anyone we don't like". And we prohibit any weapons sales to those countries so that the real terrorists can take control. There would never have been a Syrian Civil War had the US and NATO not restricted the military equipment that Syria needed to fight the Jihadists and general dissidents.
 
rabidz7 said:
The US has no right to interfere with other countries. They use their power to force other nations into submission. Look at Syria or Cuba. The US lists them as "state sponsors to terrorism", with terrorism being "anyone we don't like". And we prohibit any weapons sales to those countries so that the real terrorists can take control. There would never have been a Syrian Civil War had the US and NATO not restricted the military equipment that Syria needed to fight the Jihadists and general dissidents.
Click to expand...

I don't see how any of that stuff is related to asking New Zealand to arrest someone. New Zealand is using its own courts to decide whether to pass the bacon over to the US.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I don't see how any of that stuff is related to asking New Zealand to arrest someone. New Zealand is using its own courts to decide whether to pass the bacon over to the US.
Click to expand...

And that should not even be considered. When countries fail to comply with the US demands, the US bullies them.
 
rabidz7 said:
The US has no right to interfere with other countries. They use their power to force other nations into submission. Look at Syria or Cuba. The US lists them as "state sponsors to terrorism", with terrorism being "anyone we don't like". And we prohibit any weapons sales to those countries so that the real terrorists can take control. There would never have been a Syrian Civil War had the US and NATO not restricted the military equipment that Syria needed to fight the Jihadists and general dissidents.
Click to expand...

First, the US most certainly did have a right in this case. That right was first expressed by New Zealand who authorized the raid and second by treaties allowing the US to prosecute individuals in NZ who are attempting to escape crimes committed in the US. Consequently, NZ also has the right to chase criminals to the US. NZ also receives a number of other benefits from the US. So please stop saying the US "strong-armed" or "kidnapped" anyone, it is simply false.

Second, I don't even know where you think you are going with Syria and Cuba. Both have been shown to have sponsored terror and even committed actions of terror on their own people. The US was not alone in declaring them sponsors to terror. I love how people want to put all this squarely on the US's doorstep when many other countries have openly supported the moves. If we were to follow your logic back a few decades then would you have been one of the ones advocating for arming Iraq and Iran during their wars? Or perhaps you would have advocated for more involvement in Vietnam and Korea? Or how about arming the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight Russia? Because all of those turned out great didn't they?
 
rabidz7 said:
And that should not even be considered. When countries fail to comply with the US demands, the US bullies them.
Click to expand...

So, we should ignore the idea that bacon is getting an extradition hearing in a New Zealand court so that your argument carries more perceived weight and therefore seems more valid to you. Okay, cool. Let's do that. We'll forget the hearing is happening. So now what do you wanna talk about?
 
NoOther said:
First, the US most certainly did have a right in this case. That right was first expressed by New Zealand who authorized the raid and second by treaties allowing the US to prosecute individuals in NZ who are attempting to escape crimes committed in the US. Consequently, NZ also has the right to chase criminals to the US. NZ also receives a number of other benefits from the US. So please stop saying the US "strong-armed" or "kidnapped" anyone, it is simply false.

Second, I don't even know where you think you are going with Syria and Cuba. Both have been shown to have sponsored terror and even committed actions of terror on their own people. The US was not alone in declaring them sponsors to terror. I love how people want to put all this squarely on the US's doorstep when many other countries have openly supported the moves. If we were to follow your logic back a few decades then would you have been one of the ones advocating for arming Iraq and Iran during their wars? Or perhaps you would have advocated for more involvement in Vietnam and Korea? Or how about arming the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight Russia? Because all of those turned out great didn't they?
Click to expand...

Source for Cuba and Syria having "sponsored terror"? And Cuba/Syria treat their people very well as long as they cooperate and don't support insurrections. Americans just think that anything other than democracy is evil. Mob rule is never the solution. Look at the US: most people support the drug war and other shit. Likewise in Syria, there are tons of people against the separation of church and state.
 
rabidz7 said:
Source for Cuba and Syria having "sponsored terror"? And Cuba/Syria treat their people very well as long as they cooperate and don't support insurrections. Americans just think that anything other than democracy is evil. Mob rule is never the solution. Look at the US: most people support the drug war and other shit. Likewise in Syria, there are tons of people against the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Lawlz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top