Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712) comment rss

  • On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate

    Whatever ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2015 @ 06:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud? Extortion?

    You want to try to fix inaccurate metering. But I don't make a federal case out of it either. My first assumption isn't that the problem is attempted fraud or systemic scamming.

    Your attitude goes a long way towards either resolution or disconnection, I guess!

  • On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate

    Whatever ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2015 @ 09:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Laughing...

    Pathetic, honestly. It's not "fuck techdirt", it's "didn't you notice the stupidity of claiming wifi is secure".

    It doesn't make Techdirt right or wrong. It just points of something that I consider funny - when it comes to explain away piracy, WiFi isn't secure at all and apparently people get hacked all the time. Yet, when it comes to counting broadband usage, it's absolutely impossible that anyone could hack his "secured" wifi.

    I think it's funny as hell, and points out quite a contradictory situation.

  • On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate

    Whatever ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2015 @ 09:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Fraud? Extortion?

    I am not on Comcasts side. Read my comments, I think they are wrong here. But I also think it's insanely two faced not to laugh at the guy for saying his wifi is secure, when it's common knowledge that it is not.

    Comcast are a*holes, no doubt about it - but slam them for something important, not for clerical errors or transposition of digits when entering a long code. That falls in "shit happens" and isn't a federal crime.

  • On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate

    Whatever ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2015 @ 11:15am

    Re: Fraud? Extortion?

    Trying to turn a clerical error into a criminal case is insane. Back the rhetoric down about 99% and try your thought process again. Perhaps capital punishment for transposing a digit on your tax return is next?

  • On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate

    Whatever ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2015 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Laughing...

    "Because it wasn't "open" at all, but merely on?"

    The excuse for piracy is that WiFi is easily hacked. So "secure" or "open" doesn't mean anything by that standard. Clearly, his wifi could have been hacked and used as a seed point for torrents while he was out of the country.

    I don't think that it's the case, and I do think comcast is likely in the wrong. But if we want to play fair, the "wifi is secure" argument doesn't stand up to the usual excuses posted on Techdirt about it being easily hacked.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2015 @ 05:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    It only bears reposting if you being a troll. Hopefully the community will deal with your trolling propertly.

  • On the post: Facebook's Zuckerberg: If You Oppose Our International Power Grab, You're An Enemy Of The Poor

    Whatever ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2015 @ 10:45am

    "Offering a restrictive, curated version of the Internet over last-generation, lagging telecom infrastructure isn't a revolution, "

    When they have absolutely nothing, something IS a revolution. It may mean nothing to you in your comparative ivory tower of high speed internet and such, but for them, it's likely a big deal.

    Is it the best solution? Of course not. The restrictive nature is horrible, and shows FB in a very poor light. But for the end recipients who will have something way better than the nothing they had before, let's consider that it is still a revolution.

  • On the post: Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate

    Whatever ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2015 @ 08:47am

    Laughing...

    This quote got me:

    'it must be somebody stealing your Wi-Fi,'" he wrote. "Possible, but highly unlikely. I’m a software developer, Linux kernel contributor, and I take my home security very seriously."

    First off, if you take network security seriously, you would turn off your router while you are out of the country. Why leave it open?

    Second, isn't the standard "someone hacked by wifi" the excuse for every pirate who wants to say they didn't download the file or aren't seeding the latest movies? Under the standard Techdirt list of excuses, this guy is totally f--ked because, well, someone could always hack his wifi, right?

    Another head shaking moment on Techdirt.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2015 @ 10:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    I dunno... the courts allowed him access to something like 5 million, and instead of defense, he spent the money on a political party. I can't say that defending himself is top of his list at times. His lives and incredibly extravegent lifestyle for someone who is so desperately poor. I want to be "poor" like him.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2015 @ 06:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    My fear is that Kim is fighting sort of a proxy war at this point, trying everything under the sun not to even face the charges. Yet, as we have seen, he seems to eventually lose at almost every turn.

    Meanwhile, he is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. When he gets to the US (and he will, I think), he will complain about a lack of funds. If found guilty, he will forever complain about a lack of money and blame the system (rather than himself) for his wrongdoing.

    It's sort of like a boxer wearing himself out in the training area before a fight, and getting into the ring already tired and no longer able to fight. So instead of grinding it out in the main event for 10 rounds, he'll end up on his ass in round one too tired to actually put up a good fight.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2015 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    Your ideas may hold water if this was a criminal case in NZ, which it is not. Kim wishes like hell the case was being argued there, but it is not. The requirement for extradition is only to show that the extradition level charges are valid in both countries, and that is it. Guilty or innocent under NZ law is not relevant nor is it being judged. The judge has said basically that the charges in the US that merit and extradition meet up with similar NZ offenses.

    As much as Kim wanted to argue the whole case in NZ, the judge is having nothing of it. He's not there to find Kim guilty or innocent, only that the US DOJ has touched all the right bases and that it all aligns with similar NZ laws.

    Honestly, if Kim is innocent, don't you think he would have long since come to the US to get this over with? He's arguing in NZ because they have a soft legal system with many ways for people like Kim to delay things for years.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2015 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    "Because illegal evidence doesn't magically become legal."

    Except that it does. See, part of the problem for Kim here is that the actions in NZ (which were "illegal" mostly because of an incomplete warrant form, and since given a pass by the courts in NZ) don't change the nature of the information collected for the US courts. The legality or not of the NZ search may not end up meaning much in a US court of law, where the information likely would not be suppressed because it wasn't US law enforcement that collected it.

    Essentially, the information does magically become legal in the US, because of where the search occurred.

    Also, any argument of poisoned fruit would be for a US court during a trial in the US. Kim's lawyers at the time tried to argue that the warrant wasn't valid and didn't get much relief on the matter. The courts ruled the searches legal and every appeal on the matter has been shut down and lost.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2015 @ 06:52pm

    Re: Re:

    Glad you ain't a lawyer!

    Black letter law. You can be charged with laundering money from a source that has not yet been declared illegal if it's part of the same criminal proceeding. So he is charged with illegally selling access to copyright material and then charged with laundering the proceeds of this criminal act.

    You don't have to step through them one at a time.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2015 @ 06:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    "I don't think you understand. Commercial copyright violation is not an extraditable offense in either country."

    Actually, I understand it completely. What you are not understanding is that it's not the offense that is getting him extradited. It's illegal in both countries, and any other bad acts that occur as a result of it may be extradition level offenses. Common law fraud (false representation) in NZ would be. Laundering the proceeds of a criminal enterprise (even if the criminal act itself isn't an extradition offense) is itself valid for extradition.

    It's why you have to pay attention here.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Dec, 2015 @ 09:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    For Christmas this year, I hope that the Techdirt community can see you for what you are, a nasty person intent on attacking me personally rather than discussion issues. Hopefully more and more people will downvote your hateful, venomous posts and help clean up the community.

    The rest of your post is a pack of lies and misrepresentations. Proof that you are a malicious idiot.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Dec, 2015 @ 09:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Context

    "That would be relevant if he could be extradited for copyright infringement, but that is supposed to be against the law."

    I don't think you understand. Commercial copyright violation is a crime in both countries. Selling access to it (under common law) amounts to a fraud (you defraud the user into paying for something you cannot sell, digital snake oil if you like). Taking the money from that enterprise and and trying to move it to legal ones via sales commissions and other methods is money laundering.

    "If that had all happened the way the DOJ claims*, but there were no copyright infringement, is it even conceivable that this case would be in the same place it is today?"

    The sale of access to copyright material without permission is the underlying crime - it's the illegal act that sets the stage for the rest of it. Kim and his team would have to have been way beyond willfully blind not to know that almost all of their income was derived in this manner. We won't talk about things like playing a copyright movie part of the way through and then demanding payment to download the rest... there is just so much here.

    " setting aside for the moment the question of whether paying normal business expenses is money laundering"

    Paying normal expensives isn't in itself money laundering, unless you are selling those services to yourself at an inflated price to move money away from the corrupt enterprice. If they had 50k a month of real server costs but were paying half a million a month for them, then it's potentially money laundering.

    " It seems (to this layperson) that the whole extradition case rests squarely on a non-extraditable offense."

    That offense is only one of many. It's what creates the situations where the others occur. Pure copyright violation (say someone seeding a torrent from home) wouldn't make it to the level of extradition. But selling access to it and moving the money away to other companies to avoid seizure and legal trouble is an extradition level offense.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Dec, 2015 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Context

    "secondary liability is non-existent in criminal copyright."

    I think this is where you sort of go off the road on this one. The question of secondary liability is meaningless because the question is that of primary liability - knowing marketing and selling infringing materials.

    I think we can all agree that Kim Schmitz is a pretty bright guy (in his own way). As an astute businessman, you can bet your bottom dollar that he knew exactly what links, what files, and what uploaders were bringing him the most income. It would be a very natural concept to know what people like and to try to give them more of it. In looking at a list of things like name_of_new_movie_rip and name_of_latest_software_with_keygen, you would have to be every so slightly more than ignorant to not know where you are making your money. In fact, you would have to be willfully blind.

    If you are paying out 50k a month to someone for marketing, wouldn't you want to know what people are buying and how the guy is sending traffic to you? Do you not think that at least once in a while Kim or his team mambers would have twigged onto someone being a pirate, and ignored it because it was making them piss pots full of cash?

    One would have to assume that Kim was entirely ignorant to the content of his site, and that nobody at any time every in the company had noted that the most popular content on the site was just about all pirated. It's just not supported by the facts as presented.

    "So the argument is that nothing that Dotcom qualifies for extradition, and the judge handwaved around it. I find that problematic."

    Again, part of the problem here is that they don't have to make the case in NZ, beyond showing that there is enough to merit legal action being taken. They don't have to find him guilty in NZ, only that he could be charged with an indictable offense. Conspiracy to defraud, money laundering, and all that clearly rises to that level. If Kim was so sure his business was legal, why was he (a) operating servers in one country, (b) using holding in another country, (c) living in a third country, and (d) using numerous shell companies in different countries to "extract" the gains away from Mega and out to these shells? Why go to such a huge process on a legal business? MU was already essentially tax free (Hong Kong has no tax on offshore income for corporations), so why work to move the money around like this unless he felt that the income was at risk?

    You don't have to think to hard to realize it doesn't add up. The judge saw it for what it is, a reasonable case with enough doubtful activies and answers to merit a trial in the US.

  • On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context

    Whatever ( profile ), 24 Dec, 2015 @ 10:07pm

    Context

    I think the judge got the context right. The real context here is that this is an extradition hearing, and not a criminal prosecution. Just like a civil case, the standards for extradition isn't absolute certainty and a conviction. It's only that the prosecution has some semblance of a reasonable case.

    All that you argue here is guilt or innocence. That isn't the point. Context is VERY important.

  • On the post: New Zealand Says Kim Dotcom Eligible For Extradition; Dotcom To Appeal

    Whatever ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2015 @ 06:18pm

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

    "And if what the US alleges is NOT proven true, then what? Are the US taxpayers on the hook for rebuilding his business?"

    Well, it's always the risks in being in a marginal or potentially illegal business that you have to deal with the legal aspects. That includes the risk that your business is closed or shut down for a period of time.

    If what Kim did is entirely legal, he could restart tomorrow and he would almost instantly be completely back in business - and more so, as the legal standing would make the site even more open and public. Winning would make Kim a billionaire.

    Not seeing the problem.

    It would be about as impossible for Kim to prove ACTUAL damages as you guys would claim it is for copyright holders to prove. Lots of theory, but what would have happened if someone opened SuperUpload at half the price, twice the speed, and so on? His business could have been destroyed naturally 5 minutes later. So what is the lost value? Potential value? Roll out all the arguments used against copyright damages, and try it out!

  • On the post: New Zealand Says Kim Dotcom Eligible For Extradition; Dotcom To Appeal

    Whatever ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2015 @ 09:52am

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

    Paul, I assume english isn't your first language. I'll try to make it clearer for you:

    Copyright of course is the key illegal act which garnered MU hundreds of millions of dollars. It is also NOT generally an extraditable offence. However, commercial copyright violation / piracy is illegal in both countries. It is the bad act which generated the illegal revenue, and Kim's knowledge of the infringing material on the site is very key. It is, however, not a directly extraditable offence in and of itself.

    Thus, we have money laundering. That is an extradition level offense, no doubt about it. Kim created a number of shell companies to promote and market MU services, with the intent to move money away from MU and clean it through a commission payment system. It takes the money away from the criminal enterprise, and moves it to clean "marketing" companies in a handful of different countries.

    So the issue is simple: The commercial copyright may not alone be an extradition level offense. But it is certainly part of the package which supports the larger, and much clearer money laundering setup.

    "all without addressing a single point brought up during the whole fiasco."

    What's to add? If the what the US alleges is true, Kim knowingly made hundreds of millions of dollars by selling access to material he knew wasn't legal to distribute, and set up a system to move the money away from the corrupt enterprise to safe haven shell companies around the world. His actions seem to how a consciousness of guilt that is pretty hard to deny.

Next >>