Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

yro.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#31

Post by slazaro »

DHowett wrote: post #18
typis7 wrote: post #6

I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all t…

If Dotcom wanted an open-source community-supported file sharing platform that couldn't be taken over by external forces, why did he create the perfect antithesis to that? Why did he in fact sign an agreement barring him from competing in that sector? I can't understand how somebody who wants such a perfect world consistently painted himself into a corner from which he couldn't.

The way I understood it, he just has different priorities now. It's not like he always wanted to do the community supported solution and decided to do the closed source one. He apparently made this decision recently.

It still sounds like he's just reacting to his current situation, rather than doing because of his ideals.

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#32

Post by mxxx »

typis7 wrote: post #6

I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all t…

Is this actually the first that's been heard of this? I had no idea...

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#33

Post by corin_ »

acqq wrote: post #28
ivank wrote: post #3

http://www.zdnet.com/article/mega-denies-claims-by-kim-dotco...

Even if the title is "Mega denies" they either confirm what Dotcom claims or simply don't comment. Dotcom: "In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that was setup for my children." Mega: "Mega said that it has 13 percent of its shareholdings subject to two freezing orders. A 6 percent holding controlled by Dotcom's estranged wife was frozen in November 2014 by the New Zealand High Cour…

Firstly, the line you quote said "all the" shares, the fact that 13% have been frozen doesn't prove or disprove that statement.

Secondly, Dotcom's main claim was the hostile takeover, his family shares were just a part of that. It could be true that they were frozen but un-true about the rest of his claims.

So yes, it's a denial of his full claims, but maybe (or maybe not) a confirmation of one part of his claims that you pulled out.

That said it's obviously a bunch of PR speak that means nothing. For example this line:

> "More than 75 percent of shareholders have supported recent equity issues, so there has not been any 'hostile takeover',

You could plot a hostile takeover in which the end, winning, result is that you own 75% of the shares, that is the takeover. So having shareholder support when the claim against you is "they took over the company by sneakily getting shareholder control" is irrelevant.

All in all, it's a denial, but not one with any evidence in either direction.

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#34

Post by Intermernet »

typis7 wrote: post #6

I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all t…

This provides some more info: https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companie...

Dotcom ceased to be a director on 3rd September 2013 (http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies...) but I can't get a definite answer on shareholdings (https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companie...) as they may be through layers of shell companies, and highly untraceable.

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#35

Post by acqq »

corin_ wrote: post #33
acqq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the title is "Mega denies" they either confirm what Dotcom claims or simply don't comment. Dotcom: "In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that was setup for my children." Mega: "Mega said that it has 13 percent of its shareholdings subject to two freezing orders. A 6 percent holding controlled by Dotcom's estranged wife was frozen in November 2014 by the New Zealand High Cour…

Firstly, the line you quote said "all the" shares, the fact that 13% have been frozen doesn't prove or disprove that statement. Secondly, Dotcom's main claim was the hostile takeover, his family shares were just a part of that. It could be true that they were frozen but un-true about the rest of his claims. So yes, it's a denial of his full claims, but maybe (or maybe not) a confirmation of one part of his claims tha…

All the "shares in the family trust" seized by "Hollywood" (claimed by Dotcom) can be exactly the "6 percent holding controlled by Dotcom's estranged wife (which) was frozen (...) on application by five Hollywood film studios" (stated by Mega).

On another side "The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud." (said by Dotcom) is not commented by Mega at all (unsurprisingly). So what did Mega actually deny? I claim, nothing. It's OK if you consider it enough that they call the statement "a denial" but from my subjective point of view, the press and we, the readers, should not even accept such a name if there's nothing in the statement that denies anything Dotcom claimed. I think you actually agree that nothing was effectively denied, as you also say: "it's obviously a bunch of PR speak that means nothing." So yes, Mega can call it a denial, but I don't understand how anybody else can call it so if he/she reads the content of the statement. Specifically, how can the news agency write the title "Mega denies" and be trusted? It's not the same as "Mega responds."

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#36

Post by geomark »

erikb wrote: post #30
typis7 wrote: post #6

I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all t…

That Kim guy is really always good for a story. I'm impressed. But has anybody seen his documentary? I don't think he's really happy. On the top of his career he had "bunnies" and yacht parties, and a VIP seat in a Formula 1 race. But he never seemed happy, and most of his friends just seemed to be these people who just want to get a share from the money. I don't know, but seeing that I never wanted to exchange my li…

I read a quote once from a guy that became very wealthy when his company went public. He too became a magnet for fake friends. He said that the thing with fake friends is they are so much better at acting like friends than real friends. No doubt Kim knows that feeling.

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#37

Post by erikb »

geomark wrote: post #36
erikb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Kim guy is really always good for a story. I'm impressed. But has anybody seen his documentary? I don't think he's really happy. On the top of his career he had "bunnies" and yacht parties, and a VIP seat in a Formula 1 race. But he never seemed happy, and most of his friends just seemed to be these people who just want to get a share from the money. I don't know, but seeing that I never wanted to exchange my li…

I read a quote once from a guy that became very wealthy when his company went public. He too became a magnet for fake friends. He said that the thing with fake friends is they are so much better at acting like friends than real friends. No doubt Kim knows that feeling.

I hope he took from his down swing how to recognize these. That's a huge negative impact on one's life, having such kind of friends. Even on the good days they suck out your energy without you realizing it. And again, I think even as such a friend you don't have a happy life.

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#38

Post by GBond »

erikb wrote: post #30
typis7 wrote: post #6

I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all t…

That Kim guy is really always good for a story. I'm impressed. But has anybody seen his documentary? I don't think he's really happy. On the top of his career he had "bunnies" and yacht parties, and a VIP seat in a Formula 1 race. But he never seemed happy, and most of his friends just seemed to be these people who just want to get a share from the money. I don't know, but seeing that I never wanted to exchange my li…

Being a startup news site, I'm sure some HNers can relate.

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#39

Post by PopeOfNope »

qopp wrote: post #19
DHowett wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Dotcom wanted an open-source community-supported file sharing platform that couldn't be taken over by external forces, why did he create the perfect antithesis to that? Why did he in fact sign an agreement barring him from competing in that sector? I can't understand how somebody who wants such a perfect world consistently painted himself into a corner from which he couldn't.

Maybe for money?

Court cases are expensive.

Re: Kim Dotcom Answers Questions

#40

Post by geomark »

erikb wrote: post #37
geomark wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read a quote once from a guy that became very wealthy when his company went public. He too became a magnet for fake friends. He said that the thing with fake friends is they are so much better at acting like friends than real friends. No doubt Kim knows that feeling.

I hope he took from his down swing how to recognize these. That's a huge negative impact on one's life, having such kind of friends. Even on the good days they suck out your energy without you realizing it. And again, I think even as such a friend you don't have a happy life.

I think he (my friend, not Kim) ended up deciding he preferred his fake friends because they were so much better at being "friends". His real friends would call him out and tell him to get real when he started getting too full of himself due to his new wealth. His fake friends were always supportive regardless of how outrageous his behavior became (and it went way over the top). I guess it is kind of a selection bias effect and the same thing that leads to big-headed bosses surrounding themselves with yes men. I wonder if Kim fell into that trap.
Post reply on HN