|
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
The problem (from Dotcom's p-o-v) was that he couldn't pay the owner. Because
the Feds had "stolen" his money.
What would you do if the Feds froze your bank account? Just because you've got
plenty of money it's no good if you can't spend it. Dotcom didn't bank on his
money being locked away where he couldn't get at it - and why should he?
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
The feds can no longer claim Dotcom is knowingly aiding copyright infringement
because Dotcom does not keep the decryption keys. That's the beauty of his new
plan. From
some perspectives, such built-in immunity makes if vastly
superior
to the Pirate Bay model. Think about it for a
second, the Pirate Bay keeps
running afoul of the law
even though they don't host any data while Dotcom has
come
up with a way of actually hosting data without running
afoul of the
law.
You seem to blatantly ignore the fact that Dotcom was cooperating
with the feds when they launched the illegal raid on his house. They used his
cooperation as the basis of their trumped up charges against him. How you can
blame Dotcom for all of that is mind boggling. It's like someone gets
intentionally run over by a car and then you blame the victim for not keeping
their scheduled appointments. What's worse is you blame his business model for
the missed appointments while you blithely ignore the fact that he was just run
over.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|