First they used the massive, militarized police force peacefully and I didn't complain because no one was injured. Then they used the massive, militarized police force to hurt people and I didn't complain because no one was killed. Then the massive, militarized police force started killing people, and it was too late to complain.
Something doesn't have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to have lessons learned from Nazi Germany usefully applied to it. No one said "OMG Kim Dotcom is exactly like Anne Frank!". The police raid was clear overkill and many people are, rightfully, bothered by the militarization of police forces. It is important to object, even in defense of a fairly shady character like Dotcom because eventually that apparatus will be turned on others and it will be too late to stop it. Really, we should have been complaining a long time ago when the police (at least in the US) started treating the inner city like a war zone.
I perceived fsckin’s comment as disapproving of Schmitz’s arrest and/or prosecution. In other words: ‘First they came for the pirate/embezzler/blackhat and I didn’t speak out’. That’s a line of reasoning I object to, and the original quote is far too serious for that.
Your comment is about the militarization of police forces, which I agree, is scary and should be objected to, even if it were only used against the scum of the earth.
I can not help but read your comments throughout this post and note the obvious bias. But what makes Kim scum of the Earth vis-a-vis this case? What makes megaupload any different than Google Drive or Dropbox, where people are illegally sharing file? Ironically, it is my understanding that megauploads actually gave copyright holders far greater control of protecting their content than Dropbox and Google Drive - giving them administrative access to remove content themselves and not be subject to serving copyright violations. Just curious what your underlying issue is with this guy, because it simply can not be that third parties used megauploads to illegally share copyrighted files.
> I can not help but read your comments throughout this post and note the obvious bias.
I plead guilty. I do not like Kim Dotcom and what he does. My impression of him is that he’s an egotistical sociopathic opportunistic hedonistic grandstanding thug without moral compass. Megaupload is only a small part of what gave me that impression, I’ve been reading about his ‘endeavors’ for over a decade.
As for Megaupload, in the articles I’ve read over the years, he hasn’t done much to combat piracy on his network, some go as far as suggesting he encouraged it. He also claims patents over web tech like two factor authentication.
He also posed on photos with all the firearms he has, which surely must’ve made the NZ authorities queasy about peacefully apprehending him.
Nothing wrong with disliking the guy, and of course he has a colorful past, complete with prior non-violent criminal charges. However, there should be certain things not to wish on your worst enemy, international state sponsored persecution should be one of them. Prosecution is fine where appropriate, but not persecution.
>Megaupload is only a small part of what gave me that impression, I’ve been reading about his ‘endeavors’ for over a decade.
Specifically as it relates to megauploads is there anything that differentiates megauploads from say dropbox or google drive (even youtube for that matter), and I don't care if its your opinion or you point me to a third party article. We all know copyright violations take place, but in no other instance, I am aware, has a website been criminally liable for the acts of its members, in fact the US created the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which creates a legal firewall between the websites and its members activities. Even Napster only got sued in a civil context, no criminal charges, much less a counter terrorist unit sent to detain Sean Parker.
>he hasn’t done much to combat piracy on his network, some go as far as suggesting he encouraged it.
According to this Wired article (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/) Megauploads gave Copyright holders far greater access/control to protect their registered copyrights than any other cloud sharing service.
>He also claims patents over web tech like two factor authentication.
Kim is the registered patent holder for this in the US, perhaps it is inappropriate, maybe even unenforceable, but compare this patent with Apple having a patent on rectangular electronic devices, or the ridiculous patents Motorola owns which is the sole reason for Google acquiring them. Do you equally hate Apple and Google?
>He also posed on photos with all the firearms he has, which surely must’ve made the NZ authorities queasy about peacefully apprehending him.
This is a slippery slop, more or less it appears you justify the use of counter terrorist operations, complete with helicopters and silencers to take down alleged non-violent criminals so long as there is a picture showing the alleged suspect with a gun. Having guns does not make someone a violent person, and I do not think pictures of Kim with guns made NZ authorities "queasy", because their intelligence was not limited to pictures depicting a man with guns, they knew everything about their target, Kim, including the fact that he is non-violent.
Something doesn't have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to have lessons learned from Nazi Germany usefully applied to it. No one said "OMG Kim Dotcom is exactly like Anne Frank!". The police raid was clear overkill and many people are, rightfully, bothered by the militarization of police forces. It is important to object, even in defense of a fairly shady character like Dotcom because eventually that apparatus will be turned on others and it will be too late to stop it. Really, we should have been complaining a long time ago when the police (at least in the US) started treating the inner city like a war zone.