11–20 of 63 posts
To me, he went from being a "victim that is also a douchebag" when he seems to be doomed to "antihero" as soon he's started winning. That being said, I don't have any problem with the services that megaupload is providing even if it tremendously anger copyright holders.
Given his past and the megaupload business model, you have to fuck up pretty badly to turn Kim into this much of a hero. If Hollywood had chased a civil case against him, they would have almost certainly won it and shut down his business, which would have then paved the way for them to pursue a criminal investigation (although I am far from convinced that he has done anything explicitly illegal as opposed to merely u…
What he does is probably illegal, according to copyright laws, but is it that immoral? The problem to me is the amount of physical violence he endured, compared to the amount of physical violence he caused. It's as if the police would beat down someone who didn't tip a street performer.
My understanding is that what some of the users were doing was possibly illegal under US law, but probably unlawful most everywhere else, and that what he was doing was possibly unlawful but not illegal pretty much everywhere, including in the US. Knowingly facilitating copyright infringement is a charge that can be leveled at every industry that provides consumer equipment or services that copy or transmit data, from ISP's through to the manufacturers of video recorders.
He's a hero because he let people warez and they lost their favorite source for warez when his system was shut down. Everything else -- the FBI fuckups, the legitimate users losing data, and so on -- is a secondary justification for supporting a warez site. Those issues can be opposed on their own without making the warezer-in-chief into a hero.
He is (not by choice, but still) fighting the US government, particularly in an area where many perceive the latter to be bound by lobbies. That's enough to make him seem like a knight in shiny armor.
Personally, I'd like for both to lose ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What he does is probably illegal, according to copyright laws, but is it that immoral? The problem to me is the amount of physical violence he endured, compared to the amount of physical violence he caused. It's as if the police would beat down someone who didn't tip a street performer.
What he does is probably illegal, according to copyright laws My understanding is that what some of the users were doing was possibly illegal under US law, but probably unlawful most everywhere else, and that what he was doing was possibly unlawful but not illegal pretty much everywhere, including in the US. Knowingly facilitating copyright infringement is a charge that can be leveled at every industry that provides…
He's a hero because he let people warez and they lost their favorite source for warez when his system was shut down. Everything else -- the FBI fuckups, the legitimate users losing data, and so on -- is a secondary justification for supporting a warez site. Those issues can be opposed on their own without making the warezer-in-chief into a hero.
That's certainly an important part, but I think it ignores the natural tendency for considering "the enemy of my enemy, my friend". He is (not by choice, but still) fighting the US government, particularly in an area where many perceive the latter to be bound by lobbies. That's enough to make him seem like a knight in shiny armor. Personally, I'd like for both to lose ;)
To me, he went from being a "victim that is also a douchebag" when he seems to be doomed to "antihero" as soon he's started winning. That being said, I don't have any problem with the services that megaupload is providing even if it tremendously anger copyright holders.
I agree. Personally, the man seems like an ass of the highest caliber but I don't feel the service he provided warranted a raid. A great example of misuse of power and questionable priorities.
Given his past and the megaupload business model, you have to fuck up pretty badly to turn Kim into this much of a hero. If Hollywood had chased a civil case against him, they would have almost certainly won it and shut down his business, which would have then paved the way for them to pursue a criminal investigation (although I am far from convinced that he has done anything explicitly illegal as opposed to merely u…
Breaking copyright is so normal, at least among those younger than 40 that almost any reponse would be seen as too heavy handed. Choppers and armed police, however are completely of the scale.
This article fails to mention that the FBI has illegally copied and extradited out of NZ jurisdiction the vast amount of data gained in the illegal raid on his home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What he does is probably illegal, according to copyright laws My understanding is that what some of the users were doing was possibly illegal under US law, but probably unlawful most everywhere else, and that what he was doing was possibly unlawful but not illegal pretty much everywhere, including in the US. Knowingly facilitating copyright infringement is a charge that can be leveled at every industry that provides…
That's too simplistic. Lets take the example of a gun. The gun industry makes a product that can be used for intentional harm or for protection. One company sells a 35mm handgun to the general public and another sells assault rifles to the general public. A reasonable person knows an assault rifle is not for protection (and don't get pedantic and say "well depends where you live", etc. because you know what I mean).…