average_joe’s Techdirt Profile


About average_joe

average_joe’s Comments comment rss

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 3:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    I read "Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement." as "Nowhere in the charges are there any evidence presented to support specific criminal infringement". And there isn't.

    He didn't say "He is not being charged with specific *criminal* infringement". If he did, you'd have a point, also the subject has been discussed extensively when his indictment was news.

    I read it as him denying that there's any specific criminal infringement shown, emphasis on "criminal." That count of the indictment shows specific criminal infringement. It's criminal under Section 506(a)(1)(C) even though it's only one film.

    The text of the indictment demonstrates some of the evidence behind the charge:

    On or about October 25, 2008, VAN DER KOLK uploaded an infringing copy of a copyrighted motion picture entitled "Taken 2008 DVDRip Repack [A Release Lounge H264 By Micky22].mp4" to Megaupload.com and e-mailed the URL link for the file to another individual. An infringing copy of this copyrighted work was still present as of October 27, 2011, on a server in the Eastern District of Virginia controlled by the Mega Conspiracy.
    The allegation is that Bram van der Kolk uploaded it personally. The others are alleged to be accomplices (that's the 18 U.S.C. 2 bit in the text I quoted above). Accomplices are treated as though they committed the act themselves. Thus, all are charged with specific CRIMINAL infringement. This is shown and alleged in the indictment.

    I'd love to hear why Mike thinks otherwise, but I suspect, as per ALWAYS, he's gone now (or you're him), and we won't get any answer from him directly. Why he can't discuss and/or admit this stuff puzzles me no end. It's OK to admit that something is alleged and shown in the indictment. But for some reason he has to defend and protect Kim and the Gang. Wonder why...

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re:

    I assumed you would *appreciate* me not making a claim about the validity without knowing much about it.

    That's a good point as I think you always jump on the invalidity bandwagon without being able to actually run through the analysis. I know that I couldn't do it, and I've never seen anything that makes me think you could either. The point though is that you didn't pull out the "invalid!" argument with this patent, and the reason why not seems obvious enough.

    Care to comment on whether specific criminal infringement is alleged in the indictment? I'll refresh your memory:

    On or about October 25,2008, in the Eastern District of Virginiaand elsewhere, the defendants, KIM DOTCOM, MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, VESTOR LIMITED, FINN BATATO, JULIUS BENCKO, SVEN ECHTERNACH, MATHIAS ORTMANN, ANDRUS NOMM, and BRAM VAN DER KOLK did willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain, infringe a copyright by distributing a workbeing prepared for commercial distribution in the United States, to wit, the copyrighted motion picture "Taken" (which would not be commercially distributed until on or about January 30,2009) by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, when defendants knew, and should have known, that the work was intended for commercial distribution. (All in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 506(a)(1)(C) and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 & 2319(d)(2))
    That's an allegation of specific criminal infringement. You claimed there were none. Can you admit that there is such an allegation or explain why this isn't one? Thanks. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload-indictment.pdf

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    LOL! Mike runs from discussions on the merits faster than anyone else I know, including everyone else who posts on TD. Seems like everyone here is happy to discuss the merits except for Mike. Wonder why not... Hmmmm....

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 11:44am

    (untitled comment)

    Here's coverage of Dotcom's patent trolling from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/kim-dotcom-claims-he-invented-two-factor-authe ntication-but-he-wasnt-first/ and Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/23/kim-dotcom-authentication-patents and IPCopy: http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor- or-not/

    All suggest that the patent may not be valid, and there's even info about the equivalent patent abroad being ruled invalid in 2011. Funny how Mike, who loves to jump on the invalidity train, instead focuses on how this might be bad for Dotcom's pending criminal trial. No mention of how terrible trolling is or questions of the patent's validity. But yeah, Mike, you're not giving him a free pass. You're treating him like you would any other troll. Obviously. LMAO!

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    On the contrary, if I worked for the MPAA or similar, he'd just be attacking me for that rather than addressing the merits of anything I said. He does the same with other detractors, pointing out that they work in D.C. or are an attorney or similar. It's his standard operating procedure to attack the person since he's incapable of attacking their position.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    Very glib Masnick. But anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see that patent trolling by Dotcom is treated very differently by you than patent trolling by others.

    Exactly. Yet here he is pretending like he's not giving Dotcom a free pass. Dishonest is as dishonest does.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 9:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    Hey, AJ, can you stop denying that you've been payed by your masters at the MAFIAA and just be honest for once? Any chance you could just admit it? Thanks.

    I am not being paid by anyone. I speak my mind honestly and directly. Mike can't stand it. He only knows how to attack people--and not the merits of their posts. He's having trouble finding personal attack vectors with me.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 9:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    Yeah. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

    That you didn't condemn this obvious patent trolling as being bad in and of itself (as opposed to just potentially bad for his criminal case) is very noteworthy, and it speaks volumes about you and your love of Dotcom.

    Pointing out that this is a dumb move and probably hurts his own case is giving him a free pass?

    Yes, because you didn't condemn the act of trolling apart from it's possible negative effect on his case. You're worried it hurting him. You expressed no concern about the trolling otherwise, and you didn't even throw out your usual FUD about the validity of the patent. Only saying this might hurt his criminal case and not saying anything else negative about it is a free pass from you. Had this been IV, you would have said a lot more--and you know it.

    Can you address my point about there being alleged specific criminal infringement? Or are you sticking by your claim that there is none despite that position being completely untenable? I'm happy to quote the exact text from the indictment again if you want.

    Seriously, dude, I've told you before, and I'll say it again: you need to stop listening to the voices in your head that you THINK is me, and start responding to what I actually said. The fact that you have this strawman Mike built up in your head who is nothing like I actually am, but which you insist is the real me, is fucking weird.

    This trope again? No matter how slimy and dishonest I think you to be, you only keep proving that you're worse than I think. Want some credibility? Admit that specific criminal infringement is alleged. After that, admit that had this been IV, you would have been a lot more critical and condemning. That's a good starting point. But your sliminess in pretending like you didn't give him a free pass only reinforces my views about you. I can point to hundreds of other things you ran away from rather than just admit if you want.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art

    It is being discussed on TD you troll.

    Where in the article does Mike suggest the patent might be invalid? Seems like you're the one trolling by pretending like Mike said something he didn't.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 8:52am

    Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    While we're talking about Kim D., Mike, any chance that you can directly and honestly admit that there is in fact an allegation of specific criminal infringement in the indictment (for "Taken")? You've denied this in the past even though it's undeniably true. Any chance you could just admit it? Thanks.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 8:38am

    Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous

    You only said it's a "potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire" because of the racketeering charges. You did "focus[] on the idiocy of extortion more than the idiocy of the patent itself," because you didn't focus on the idiocy of the patent itself AT ALL. So of course any other thing you did mention received more focus than you gave to the patent itself, since that's more focus than zero focus. The only one pretending you "said stuff [you] didn't" is you.

    It's the stuff you DIDN'T say that we're focusing on. You didn't say it was patent trolling that is a bad thing regardless of the racketeering angle. You didn't question the validity of the patent itself. You pointed out that he's saying pay up or I'll sue, and then you said that his victims should consider paying up and playing along because there's a "pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case." That's you justifying his means because of the ends. That's not you condemning his means. You didn't condemn the means, hence our responses.

    Sorry Mike, but you look pretty bad here. And, of course, it's Kim Dotcom, so you give him a free pass with this stuff. No surprise there. The only surprise would have been if you had actually called him out for the "extortion" and said that was bad in general, and not just bad because it might hurt him in later litigation. Nice try and spinning this, but we can all see what you wrote.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 8:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!

    The DMCA doesn't apply in criminal cases? The safe harbor is for criminal charges too.

    Why's it stupid? I don't say things unless I have some basis for thinking it. See, for example, Copyhype: http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/megaupload-and-the-dmca/

    Even if the safe harbors were possible, there would be no protection for a person who otherwise would meet of standard of a criminal infringer.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 7:28am


    What no one even bothered to consider is how the heck did he manage to get such a ridiculous patent?

    Simple. It's Kim Dotcom, so Mike has his blinders on. This site couldn't be any easier to understand. Pirate friends = good. Copyright enemies = bad. The details are unimportant.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 7:03am

    Re: Read for comprehension!

    LOL! It's one thing to ask for another's help, but quite another to threaten to sue another for patent infringement if they don't cave into your demand for money. There's a name for that. Oh yeah, patent trolling. If IV trolled someone but then pointed out that they should cave in because it was in their best interests on some unrelated matter, do you think Mike would think it was a good idea then? Of course not.

    Besides, what precedent vis-a-vis the DMCA will be set here? I don't think the DMCA applies in criminal cases, but even if it did, what's going to happen that would affect others like Google? They are already protected by the DMCA. Dotcom isn't going to affect that in any way I can think of. Maybe you can spell out the details for me? I mean, I'm stupid and you're smart, so it should be simple for you.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 6:53am

    Re: Re: Prior Art

    In any event. such a thing has existed for decades. Unsurprisingly, some douchebag managed to get a patent on this...presumably because he put "on the internet" on the patent application.

    But this is Mike's buddy's patent, so validity will not be discussed on TD. If IV was waving this patent around, Mike would be going ABSOLUTELY APESHIT. The double-standard is hilarious.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 6:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Is that it?

    Why go so soft on Kim?

    Because Mike worships all pirates. The bigger the better.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 6:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Is that it?

    To me, it implies that it's OK for these companies to capitulate to a patent troll because the ends justify the means.

    Yep. But mostly it's because it's his pirate ally Kim D doing the trolling.

  • May 23rd, 2013 @ 6:42am

    Re: Is that it?

    If this was any one else except the sainted Kim Dotcom, you would be all over them for being weasels and patent trolls.

    Is that it?

    Bingo. The *only* problem Mike perceives here is that this might hurt Dotcom in his upcoming legal case. The patent trolling itself is not a problem, and in fact, he thinks it's a good idea that these companies capitulate to his ultimatum. Incredible. Yet, not. Because it's Mike.

  • May 22nd, 2013 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.

    Are you referring to unlocking or jailbreaking?

    If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA.

    Going after each customer in breach of contract is far more difficult than shutting down the parties that supply the tools that make it all too simple for their customers to breach.

  • May 22nd, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    AJ, your "merits" have been torn to shreds already.

    Hardly. I'm asking Mike to admit that this would weaken some of the rights that copyright holders have as far as anticircumvention is concerned. He can't even admit that much. Just like he can't admit that there is an allegation of specific criminal infringement against the Dotcom Crew or that Swartz may have violated the CFAA. For some reason (ahem... fundamental, cellular-level dishonesty) he can't ever concede simple points that cut against his rhetoric.

    As far as the 106 rights go, all I've heard are conclusory statements that DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. If Mike is basing his assessment that this proposal doesn't weaken 106 rights because DRM is ineffective, he should admit that. But he won't discuss it because he knows he can't prove that DRM has no effect. It's just part of the TD mantra that disincentives are completely ineffective when it's copyright. It's total bullshit, as per usual, and Mike has run away rather than discuss anything on the merits. What a fake.

More comments from average_joe >>