Kim Dotcom laying smack down on Obama, Biden, etc

[truth on hold]

For those of you not already following the Medgaupload situation ...

http://www.forbes.co...-of-kim-dotcom/

 

 

Kim Dotcom's latest challenge to Obama administration (even Chris Dodd rears his ugly head)...

 

Megaupload Launches Frontal Attack on White House Corruption

 

Megaupload’s legal team are not restricting their fight with the U.S. Government only to the courts. Today they published a detailed white paper accusing the White House of selling out to corporate interests, particularly Hollywood. “The message is clear. The White House is for sale. More and more of our rights are eroding away to protect the interests of large corporations and their billionaire shareholders,” Dotcom summarizes.

 

Megaupload’s lawyers see the MPAA (Motion Picture Association) as the driving force behind the criminal prosecution of the cloud hosting site and its employees. According to them, it is no coincidence that the Hollywood group is headed by former Senator Chris Dodd, one of Vice President Joe Biden’s best friends.

“As the new Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, Chris Dodd improperly leveraged his friendship with Joe Biden to achieve the MPAA’s objectives. Former Senator Dodd’s relationship with the Vice President– who comes off manipulated, a cheerfully credulous facilitator – together with the Obama Administration’s ravenous hunger for campaign contributions, has given the MPAA absolute control over how the U.S. Department of Justice plays the game in enforcing copyright law,” they write.

One cited example of how political funding was used to influence decisions was a January 2012 threat from the MPAA’s Chris Dodd. He stated that Hollywood would stop donating to politicians who fail to protect their interests.

“By threatening to revoke vital political and monetary support from the Administration at a crucial moment, the MPAA has exercised de facto control over key levers of executive power in Washington – law enforcement, prosecutors, trade negotiators – and is using those instruments of state power to further the financial interests of its members in Hollywood.”

Edited May 7, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[GG]

I could have sworn Dotcom was arrested well before Dodd moved to MPAA, but what the hey Tracey Lee thinks it's OK to download free movies, so it must be Biden's fault.

[truth on hold]

I could have sworn Dotcom was arrested well before Dodd moved to MPAA, but what the hey Tracey Lee thinks it's OK to download free movies, so it must be Biden's fault.

In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist,"^[20][21] Dodd was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).^[22] The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011,^[23] with his salary estimated at $1.5 million per year.^[24]

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Chris_Dodd

 

Acting upon a US Federal prosecutor's request, the New Zealand Police arrested Dotcom and three other Megaupload executives in a leased $30 million mansion at Coatesville near Auckland on Friday, 20 January 2012

http://en.wikipedia....load_legal_case

Edited May 8, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[GG]

In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist,"^[20][21] Dodd was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).^[22] The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011,^[23] with his salary estimated at $1.5 million per year.^[24]

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Chris_Dodd

 

Acting upon a US Federal prosecutor's request, the New Zealand Police arrested Dotcom and three other Megaupload executives in a leased $30 million mansion at Coatesville near Auckland on Friday, 20 January 2012

http://en.wikipedia....load_legal_case

 

Alright, I thought he had to sit out one year between a gov't job and a lobbying job. Maybe the one year prohibition that he wasn't allowed to have any interaction with fed gov't.

 

But the main point still stands, why should we support a pirate site hosting stolen property?

[meazza]

Alright, I thought he had to sit out one year between a gov't job and a lobbying job. Maybe the one year prohibition that he wasn't allowed to have any interaction with fed gov't.

 

But the main point still stands, why should we support a pirate site hosting stolen property?

 

Because paying for stuff sucks.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The property isn't stolen.

[GG]

The property isn't stolen.

 

OK, what term would you use for using someone else's intellectual property without permission?

[OCinBuffalo]

GG is right, of course.

 

 

However, the next time you hear: Big Oil, Big Corporations, or Big anything....you had better add Big Gay, or Big Hollywood to that list.

 

They are acting, in every way imaginable, and in some ways worse, than the caricatures they promote.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Alright, I thought he had to sit out one year between a gov't job and a lobbying job. Maybe the one year prohibition that he wasn't allowed to have any interaction with fed gov't.

 

But the main point still stands, why should we support a pirate site hosting stolen property?

Its offshore and its private. US has no authority shutting down foreign companies for activities outside US. The site was not set up to break laws. If some use it illegally in your country go after the users in your country. The main legal challenge dotcom's lawyers pose is simply that: complete lack of US jurisdiction. He may very well win too. Dodd may control his buddy biden at home, but America isn't the world.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[OCinBuffalo]

Its offshore and its private. US has no authority shutting down foreign companies for activities outside US. The site was not set up to break laws. If some use it illegally in your country go after the users in your country. The main legal challenge dotcom's lawyers pose is simply that: complete lack of US jurisdiction. He may very well win too. Dodd may control his buddy biden at home, but America isn't the world.

But, when Big Oil does something like this, which is solely done based on protecting their interests, and asks the US Govt. to interfere with other countries/people, it's evil.

 

When Big Gay Hollywood does it, it's "fairness".

 

Again, stealing is stealing, but, using political influence to get what you want is...using political influence to get what you want. It can't be Ok for some people and not for others.

 

Either it is all bad, or all good, as that is the only: "fairness".

[TakeYouToTasker]

OK, what term would you use for using someone else's intellectual property without permission?

Intelectual property is a sham.

 

Theft implies that I have deprived you of the use and ownership of your prior owned property against your will.

 

Possible future sales are not a tangible asset, and I have not deprived you of anything by deciding not to make a purchase from you.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[4merper4mer]

Intelectual property is a sham.

 

Theft implies that I have deprived you of the use and ownership of your prior owned property against your will.

 

Possible future sales are not a tangible asset, and have I deprived you of anything by deciding not to make a purchase from you.

 

In your world only an idiot would make a movie, sing a song or write software and think they could make money.

[TakeYouToTasker]

In your world only an idiot would make a movie, sing a song or write software and think they could make money.

Incorrect.

 

Regardless, that's inconsequential. You cannot own, police, and charge for the use of thought.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[KD in CA]

Incorrect.

 

Regardless, that's inconsequential. You cannot own, police, and charge for the use of thought.

 

a) apparently, you can.

b) once it's put down on paper or film or some other medium, it's no longer just 'thought'.

[TakeYouToTasker]

a) apparently, you can.

b) once it's put down on paper or film or some other medium, it's no longer just 'thought'.

a) No, you can't. That's hack anti-captitalistic, pro-corporatist bull **** legislation that has been eminently unenforcable, and has been incredibly unjust in instances where it has been attempted to be enforced.

 

b) You can't take someone else's book, or cd, or dvd without commiting a crime. Those are tangible goods. Making use of the intangible, however, is no crime at all.

 

It's not the fault of the consumer that the purveyors of art media have a poor distribution method which leads to direct competition in their markets. It falls to them to create better distribution methods to secure their content, if that's what they desire.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

Intelectual property is a sham.

 

Theft implies that I have deprived you of the use and ownership of your prior owned property against your will.

 

Possible future sales are not a tangible asset, and I have not deprived you of anything by deciding not to make a purchase from you.

 

.. says the man who thinks that services don't add value.

 

 

You're depriving me of my right to control distribution of the product I own. Thus, stealing.

 

 

 

Another libertarian in sheep's clothes.

 

a) No, you can't. That's hack anti-captitalistic, pro-corporatist bull **** legislation that has been eminently unenforcable, and has been incredibly unjust in instances where it has been attempted to be enforced.

 

b) You can't take someone else's book, or cd, or dvd without commiting a crime. Those are tangible goods. Making use of the intangible, however, is no crime at all.

 

It's not the fault of the consumer that the purveyors of art media have a poor distribution method which leads to direct competition in their markets. It falls to them to create better distribution methods to secure their content, if that's what they desire.

 

What a complete crock of sh...

 

That physical medium is worth $0.01 without the content that's burnt into it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

.. says the man who thinks that services don't add value.

 

 

You're depriving me of my right to control distribution of the product I own. Thus, stealing.

 

 

 

Another libertarian in sheep's clothes.

Either you're an idiot, or being intellectually dishonest.

 

You have the right to distribute tangible assets or products which you own as you see fit. Not so much with the intangible, which cannot be owned, because they don't exist until someone, anyone, creates them. Choosing not to buy from you is in no way similar to removing tangible assets from you aginst your will.

 

Thoughts are not tangible, and once you've shared them with me, they are my thoughts as well, and I have the absolute right to turn my own thoughts into tangible assets and do with them as I please, assuming I have the skill to do so.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

Either you're an idiot, or being intellectually dishonest.

 

You have the right to distribute tangible assets or products which you own as you see fit. Not so much with the intangible, which cannot be owned, because they don't exist until someone, anyone, creates them. Choosing not to buy from you is in no way similar to removing tangible assets from you aginst your will.

 

Thoughts are not tangible, and once you've shared them with me, they are my thoughts as well, and I have the absolute right to turn my own thoughts into tangible assets and do with them as I please, assuming I have the skill to do so.

 

Unfortunately for you, laws and courts have been consistent in deciding that not all thoughts are created equal, and there is tangible value to thoughts that are superior to others. Better thoughts are in shorter supply than stupid thoughts (which is why there's never a shortage on this site), thus the markets award value to people with better thoughts, better voices and prettier faces. Just because your ear heard it, doesn't mean you produced and and have the same right to the reproduction.

 

Again, your inner Marxist comes out that devalues anything that you can't hold in your hand. Perhaps you should keep holding it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Unfortunately for you, laws and courts have been consistent in deciding that not all thoughts are created equal, and there is tangible value to thoughts that are superior to others. Better thoughts are in shorter supply than stupid thoughts (which is why there's never a shortage on this site), thus the markets award value to people with better thoughts, better voices and prettier faces. Just because your ear heard it, doesn't mean you produced and and have the same right to the reproduction.

 

Again, your inner Marxist comes out that devalues anything that you can't hold in your hand. Perhaps you should keep holding it.

I was right, you're a complete and unmitigated moron; and also apparently equate bad law with just morality. Thanks for exposing your pluralistic approach to failure.

 

The onus is on the supplier to create a better system of delivery, and move their distribution into this century.

 

"Intellectual property rights" are nothing more than government intrusion into natural markets in order to create an artificial monopoly, and worse, are eminintly unenforcable, which is a hallmark of bad law.

 

I have every right to share with others a product I have purchased from you. I can let anyone I want drive my car. I can take on house guests. It is my right to do with my property as I see fit, and it became my property the very second I purchased it from you.

 

What I cannot do is defraud the public by claiming your work as my own, and selling it for a profit. But even if I do, I haven't violated your rights, but instead have violated the rights of the purchaser who was deliberatly misled about the goods he purchased. To rectify this, you could simply purchase a copy of my fraudulent goods, and start a class action lawsuit against me.

 

Another possible market based solution would be to have buyers enter into contracts at the point of purchase, signing away their rights to recreate the work. Any recreation of work after this point is a violation of contract law, and easily prosecutable.

 

But that's fine, you go right on ahead lauding government intrustion into natural markets and production while decrying me as socialist; and I'll keep on laughing at your idiocy.

[GG]

I was right, you're a complete and unmitigated moron; and also apparently equate bad law with just morality. Thanks for exposing your pluralistic approach to failure.

 

The onus is on the supplier to create a better system of delivery, and move their distribution into this century.

 

"Intellectual property rights" are nothing more than government intrusion into natural markets in order to create an artificial monopoly, and worse, are eminintly unenforcable, which is a hallmark of bad law.

 

I have every right to share with others a product I have purchased from you. I can let anyone I want drive my car. I can take on house guests. It is my right to do with my property as I see fit, and it became my property the very second I purchased it from you.

 

What I cannot do is defraud the public by claiming your work as my own, and selling it for a profit. But even if I do, I haven't violated your rights, but instead have violated the rights of the purchaser who was deliberatly misled about the goods he purchased. To rectify this, you could simply purchase a copy of my fraudulent goods, and start a class action lawsuit against me.

 

Another possible market based solution would be to have buyers enter into contracts at the point of purchase, signing away their rights to recreate the work. Any recreation of work after this point is a violation of contract law, and easily prosecutable.

 

But that's fine, you go right on ahead lauding government intrustion into natural markets and production while decrying me as socialist; and I'll keep on laughing at your idiocy.

 

Except the markets you describe are not natural markets, but black markets that are created to trade in stolen goods. You agree to the terms and conditions and EULAs when you buy or use copyrighted products. Just because the distribution medium has changed doesn't give you a license to trade in them.

 

Again it's your moronic obsession that non-physical goods are a different animal. And your examples are crap, because when you "buy" a reproductible work you are not buying that work, but the right to use that work on the medium you purchased. The law also allows you to copy to other media for personal use. You do not have the right to distrubute or copy to others, because you never bought that right, unlike buying the car.

 

Government is not interfering in the markets. The government is protecting individuals' rights to their owned property, comrade