That's what has happened. Someone ordered this material released to try to counter the massive pressure the NZ government is under locally not to do comply with US requests for extradition.
"This sounds like 191 pages of a meritless criminal theory,” Rothken said.
"The notion that they keep piling on more evidence to bolster civil claims of
secondary copyright infringement, to us look like they’re desperately trying
to mislead the public.”
Exactly.
I'm not arguing that he (.com) was (and almost certainly still is) a Bad Guy who deliberately built his business on selling other peoples work, but this... is just PR posturing to try to counter the thus-far terribly terribly botched efforts of the justice department.
If he is a bad guy it feels weird rooting for a bad guy. I feel like my perceptions about this entire thing are all backwards. If DotKom so bad why are they so bad at making him look bad. DotKom comes out looking like the martyr he wants to be seen as. Law enforcement look like they're private security for the entertainment industry. And yet it's clear this guy is possibly the worst kind of copyright infringer. He's not the individual who downloaded a song and is being sued for life and limb, this guy got unbelievable wealth of the work of others and still the whole thing feels wrong. Maybe we should be cheering law enforcement to bring this guy to justice but I can't help but root for the other side. The thing to blame is probably the decade of going after individuals and making them suffer has turned out to be such a huge public relations disaster that will last a generation. I just want the entertainment industry to fail and for copyright laws to fail as well.
That's because this notion of "bad guys" and "good guys" doesn't work in real life. It works in police and military situations where you take action against a declared enemy, but it's not a good tool for reasoning in a civilian setting. What you get there are not only different shades of bad, but also entirely different kinds of bad.
To point, there is really no question that Dotcom is generally not a good guy. He is a shady business man at best. It just happens that many people consider his brand of evil to be absolutely dwarfed by the motives and tactics of his government adversaries.
> If DotKom so bad why are they so bad at making him look bad.
To make Kim Dotcom look bad, just spell his surname with a K instead of a C in the middle. It evokes images of the German and Russian languages, rather than the French, and hence Nazi and Soviet undertones rather than romance and the Riviera. Imagery has more impact on public opinion than informed discussions.
Perhaps, but breaking laws to get evidence usually results in it being inadmissible. And wow did they break laws, all the way up to the PM. And they still are with the tracking and bugging that is going on.
It's not clear to me, are you saying this was bitched by the US justice department? From the perspective of a New Zealander, I'd say it was well played. The dirty work was carried out over here by willing participants. The only down side has been that a few politicians who could not be more America friendly, mainly Banks and Key, have come out looking a touch dirty.
This is a better coverage: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justice-department-... (and shame on your ars, for not bothering to link to or quote the source material for your article)
That's what has happened. Someone ordered this material released to try to counter the massive pressure the NZ government is under locally not to do comply with US requests for extradition.
Exactly.I'm not arguing that he (.com) was (and almost certainly still is) a Bad Guy who deliberately built his business on selling other peoples work, but this... is just PR posturing to try to counter the thus-far terribly terribly botched efforts of the justice department.