The Kim Dotcom thread * Update 2 Oct 2017 - SCOTUS ruling

[Cid]

Conversely, the mobile world is mostly populated by uninformed users, and it also benefits from the fact that it's new, so its user base hasn't grown accustomed to these offline luxuries that empower subcultures like piracy. Ultimately, there is a cost to piracy. The industry is adapting. Kim almost cost us our wholesale internet freedom thanks to his greedy, criminal antics.

If that's your type of hero, then kudos to your foolishness. Be his little tool. Not me. Business is brutal. Yeah, if a corporation can stick it to you, then they will: every time. That's business. It's not like the oil companies are doing any differently, but you can't pirate gasoline, and that's the difference. I'm an asshole, so I'll look out for #1, and for now, that means I'll continue to pirate; the rest of the world wouldn't stop if I did, so the only difference to me would be that I would be funding their entertainment appetites.

The difference is that I'm not going to be so naive or foolish to confuse the honest, greedy businessman who are actually involved in producing the goods I consume from the dishonest, greedy "businessmen" who are selling me something they didn't make-- just because the latter shield me from the true price tag.

I'm not a fool. Nothing in life is free.

Yeah Kim nearly took your internet freedom.

Lucky his bill failed...

Sarcasm aside you seem to be stating that he's to blame for the movie industries response.

He isn't. There wasn't an equal and appropriate response and you know it. The film industry exposed themselves as evil pieces of shit that will fuck over everyone not to ensure profits but to increase them.

I'm not saying Kim is a saint just you couldn't be more wrong about who is the bigger asshole in this situation. That you can't see this is pretty astounding.

 

[MarloStanfield]

If 2 people want to watch a movie together, that's $22 for 2 hrs for 2 people. Less for afternoons or 2nd run theatres in a couple months. And a few bucks to rent or get on cable eventually. Much more reasonable pricing, so I sympathize with the company when people won't even pay that.


Also, the fact that this guy had to flee the country after being busted for (large-scale, I assume) credit card fraud kind of puts his business ethics in a bit of an unhealthy light.

its about $18 to go to the cinema in Australia which i accept if its a movie that i want to see, me and my son go about 6 times a year i guess, it all depends on how many decent flicks are out that year, if i really like it i buy the dvd aswell.
i download other movies for the sake of it, i dont believe they are losing out because i would never of paid to watch or rent anyway

 

[Oeshon]

its 3USD to see a movie in Thailand on Wednesday. Otherwise, it is about 6-7USD.

 

[JDragon]

I go more often to the movies since I started watching movies online for free. It is true and many studies confirm this: it is the movie junkies who stream movies. In other words, those who also pay for them. This means that yes, people try to get something for free they did not pay for, but at the same time they would not have paid for it AND are the customer base. So it is a little pointless.

 

[in the]

For the most part, I don't see the box office suffering due to sites like Megaupload. Rather than dealing in the hypothetical "what if they paid!" argument, since the majority of movies downloaded wouldn't have been the paid audience anyway, I'd have to see proof that the box office as a whole has been suffering at the hands of illegal downloaders.

The one example I can make was The Expendables 3. Granted, I personally hated the first as it took the slacker director approach of shaky cam/quick shots to cover up inept directing, and I really didn't like the second, either, so it's not like I was going to waste my money on a third movie in the franchise. But outside of my personal experiences, TE3 leaked WEEKS before its release, which undoubtedly affected its final box office returns (IIRC, the movie did lose money, at least domestically, and it has to be due to the movie leaking before release).

That's the exception to the rule, though. The box office has remained strong despite forecasts of demise due to online piracy.

 

[Sharingan]

The Box office should be selling the "experience", not the movie. Anyone can stay home and watch movies.

Just like how music festivals are killing it in terms of attendance and revenue. The music isn't even that good but it's the environment that gets people to come.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kim-dotcom-calls-us-bully-court-hearing-wraps-061022250.html

Kim Dotcom ' s hearing just rapped up. It'll be interesting to see what happens here.

 

[electricfuneral]

its about $18 to go to the cinema in Australia which i accept if its a movie that i want to see, me and my son go about 6 times a year i guess, it all depends on how many decent flicks are out that year, if i really like it i buy the dvd aswell.
i download other movies for the sake of it, i dont believe they are losing out because i would never of paid to watch or rent anyway

great av.

love the wire.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Here's an update. The court has upheld the possibility of an extradition, doesn't sound good too me. It's been 4 years now and they're still fucking with him. He recently gained access to 10's of millions of his money so at least he can fight it.

 

[HomerThompson]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected New Zealand-based internet mogul Kim Dotcom’s challenge to the U.S. government’s bid to seize assets held by him and others involved in the now-defunct streaming website Megaupload.

The justices left in place a lower court ruling that the U.S. government could seize up to $40 million in assets held outside the United States as part of a civil forfeiture action being pursued in parallel with criminal charges for alleged copyright violations and money laundering."



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...sed-internet-moguls-appeal-idUSKCN1C71OX?il=0


This is a perfect example, for me, of acceptable civil asset forfeiture. He made his money ripping people off, and has no right to those funds in my view. What say you @Fawlty, @Cubo de Sangre?

 

[Rav1nHunter]

Fuck that U.S. law shouldn't be anywhere but the U.S.

 

[HomerThompson]

Fuck that U.S. law shouldn't be anywhere but the U.S.

His assets were held in banks operating in the U.S., correct? He made his money ripping off the work of people primarily from the U.S., correct?

If someone comes to my country and commits murder, should he not face U.S. law?

 

[Fedorable]

His assets were held in banks operating in the U.S., correct? He made his money ripping off the work of people primarily from the U.S., correct?

If someone comes to my country and commits murder, should he not face U.S. law?

Fuck that U.S. law shouldn't be anywhere but the U.S.

can I think about it?

 

[HomerThompson]

can I think about it?

Sure, why not.

 

[thechoice2]

His assets were held in banks operating in the U.S., correct? He made his money ripping off the work of people primarily from the U.S., correct?

If someone comes to my country and commits murder, should he not face U.S. law?

Seems like they're holding his assets that are held in banks outside of the US though. He didn't rip them off, he allowed others to rip them off using his servers.

 

[HomerThompson]

Seems like they're holding his assets that are held in banks outside of the US though. He didn't rip them off, he allowed others to rip them off using his servers.

He still profited greatly through theft. I know it's fancy because it was a hosting platform, blah blah. I still find this acceptable.

On the flip side, I oppose all civil asset forfeiture related to drug crimes. Any petty crimes, in fact.

 

[TheGreatA]

He sure violated copyrights but so did every comparable file hosting/video viewing service at the time.

He just wasn't meant to be the "crown prince" like Youtube, thus he had to be eliminated, as the only viable competitor at the time.

 

[HomerThompson]

Seems like they're holding his assets that are held in banks outside of the US though. He didn't rip them off, he allowed others to rip them off using his servers.

That's a good point though. I misstated that.

 

[Fedorable]

He still profited greatly through theft. I know it's fancy because it was a hosting platform, blah blah. I still find this acceptable.

On the flip side, I oppose all civil asset forfeiture related to drug crimes. Any petty crimes, in fact.

what about a drug tycoon with violent employees?

 

[HomerThompson]

what about a drug tycoon with violent employees?

No. The money comes from the sale of drugs. You'd have to show profit from the violence for me. It's iffy though, because a lot of the very big drug traffickers probably dabble in human trafficking, etc. Obviously, I'd be in favor of seizing assets of human trafficking operations, in addition to putting all members of said gang over fire ant mounds.