Pretty sure you wouldn't send armed police to arrest a kid who infringed copyright. Certain you wouldn't pistol whip an unarmed kid while he is sitting in his chair.
I was expect a hard hitting short video showing the facts about the effects of hollywood lobbying on US law as well as the greater effects of its implementation on countries abroad.
Instead we get a video that made me laugh at the ridiculousness scenario someone dreamed up.
Dotcom should not be a poster boy for "innocent" victim. He has a long criminal history. As far as anything Dotcom says, how can you believe him? He's been convicted of insider trading, embezzlement, computer fraud, handling stolen goods, selling stolen credit card numbers.. Those credit card numbers were attached to real people who had their lives highly inconvenienced by a thief. Why the hell do people celebrate Dotcom? He's not a crusader. He's just trying to get paid. If he did it all for free, I might be inclined to respect him, despite disagreeing with his actions. But this punk lived it up in a mansion like some kind of player and he wants us to feel sorry for him? This is like feeling sorry for Scarface.
I don't want to defend Dotcom, but what I believe was over the top was the procedure for arresting him - some other posters have made what I believe is a valid analogy, in that the US law enforcement agencies have not proceeded in the same way against Enron's CEO for example - another person found guilty of insider trading and fraud, just like Dotcom. Or Bernie Madoff.
Both did arguably more hand than Dotcom, yet neither had an armed raid against them. In Madoff's case, the assets seizure was handled way more carefully.
Comments
Pretty sure you wouldn't send armed police to arrest a kid who infringed copyright. Certain you wouldn't pistol whip an unarmed kid while he is sitting in his chair.
I was expect a hard hitting short video showing the facts about the effects of hollywood lobbying on US law as well as the greater effects of its implementation on countries abroad.
Instead we get a video that made me laugh at the ridiculousness scenario someone dreamed up.
> Police say Dotcom posed "low threat." Dotcom says they beat him anyway.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/helicopters-guns-...
You can see the video in that article too.
Dotcom should not be a poster boy for "innocent" victim. He has a long criminal history. As far as anything Dotcom says, how can you believe him? He's been convicted of insider trading, embezzlement, computer fraud, handling stolen goods, selling stolen credit card numbers.. Those credit card numbers were attached to real people who had their lives highly inconvenienced by a thief. Why the hell do people celebrate Dotcom? He's not a crusader. He's just trying to get paid. If he did it all for free, I might be inclined to respect him, despite disagreeing with his actions. But this punk lived it up in a mansion like some kind of player and he wants us to feel sorry for him? This is like feeling sorry for Scarface.
I don't want to defend Dotcom, but what I believe was over the top was the procedure for arresting him - some other posters have made what I believe is a valid analogy, in that the US law enforcement agencies have not proceeded in the same way against Enron's CEO for example - another person found guilty of insider trading and fraud, just like Dotcom. Or Bernie Madoff.
Both did arguably more hand than Dotcom, yet neither had an armed raid against them. In Madoff's case, the assets seizure was handled way more carefully.
Neither of those men had prior convictions.