Comments on: Sssh! Dotcom’s Use of Twitter Problematic, Court Told

By: antoine

antoine — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:30:00 +0000

MPAA is merde

By: robthom

robthom — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:27:00 +0000

“Crown lawyers will now seek an order to stop Dotcom from commenting in public about the ongoing court cases he’s involved in.”

What are they hiding.
Why shouldn’t the public be privy the process, laws and mechanations that govern them.

If its all plain, fair and legal whats to hide.
The more transparent the better.

By: Siti Internet Aziendali » Dotcom, politica e soldi

Siti Internet Aziendali » Dotcom, politica e soldi — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:24:51 +0000

[…] negli USA dopo la recente decisione della Corte Suprema della Nuova Zelanda e sotto osservazione da parte dei giudici per il suo utilizzo troppo “libero” di Twitter nel commentare sul […]

By: hnhhgvgtdvg

hnhhgvgtdvg — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:45:00 +0000

“Is this about obtaining documents so they can be put out in the public arena?” McDonald questioned. The notion was dismissed by Dotcom’s lawyer.”

Im sorry (sarcasm), but are they implying that this SHOULD’NT be the fucking case…….i hate to break it to them, seing as their to damn dumb to see whats infront of their eyes, but, you are lacking in the areas of trust…..maybe they should open their eyes and stop covering their ears…….or maybe, just fuck off with their arrogance

By: icec0ld

icec0ld — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:11:00 +0000

Telling me what have and have not done? Interesting if misguided stance.

You misspelled “sticking with facts” as “cherry picking”. Sorry if the truth of the matter is a bit inconvenient.

“His arrogance was his downfall.”

Arrogance isn’t a crime.

By: Law No Longer Matters When it Comes to Copyrights, as the Copyright Monopoly is Above the Law, Uses Anti-Terrorism Instruments | Techrights

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:33:08 +0000

[…] Sssh! Dotcom’s Use of Twitter Problematic, Court Told […]

By: Joe Nonymous1

Joe Nonymous1 — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 06:46:00 +0000

You read the article. You didn’t read the 132 page affidavit. Come back when you have.

You’re cherry-picking more than Kim’s legal team. That is making “shit” up.

His arrogance was his downfall.

By: icec0ld

icec0ld — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:12:00 +0000

“Telling your employees (Matthias Ortmann) to limit the takedown of Universal Takedown request to only 5000 a day, is a breach of the DMCA.”

Based on what? Hearsay. There is absolutely no evidence this was the case.

“t’s not an argument. It’s a statement, thus, your “ad hominem” renders moot. Learn how to use it in the right context”

Woah, big words. A statement can be an argument and it still isn’t changing the fact you are attacking a person behind the argument instead of the argument

Also, just fyi “moot” means: “subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty.”. Yeah, apparently calling your statements worthless to the argument is “up for debate”. If you’re going to criticize people for not using the right contest for words maybe you should actually learn how to use words in fucking context

“Think you need to read the collected evidence in the December 2013 release on ars-technica, before you keep opening your mouth and make an absolute fool out of yourself, whilst you keep reading his Twitter..”

Someone needs to realise the US is using his twitter as evidence.

I’ve read that article. It still isn’t disputing anything that’s been accepted as a fact

“As much as I don’t disagree with the assault on his house, the extradition with “racketeering & money laundering” charges,”

“Don’t disagree” Is a double negative. For less confusion you put “agree” instead.

“Kim’s interviews have always been making a big loop around the fact that he asked his employees to download TV shows from his own servers.”

You must be on the US legal team because you literally making shit up as you go to make your (flawed) point.

By: Kim Dotcom’s Mega Eyes Backdoor Towards Going Public – JUANMONEGRO.COM

Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:55:07 +0000

[…] upon his mansion. He demands documents there too, leading a lawyer for the New Zealand government to warn the judge that anything obtained could be published on social […]

By: Joe Nonymous1

Joe Nonymous1 — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:25:00 +0000

“Megaupload complied openly with DMCA requests sent to them. His personal statements do not constitute a breach of DMCA law unles you want to assert talking about “breaking the law” the same thing as actually breaking the law.”
-Telling your employees (Matthias Ortmann) to limit the takedown of Universal Takedown request to only 5000 a day, is a breach of the DMCA.

“This isn’t an argument. This is ad hominem.”
-It’s not an argument. It’s a statement, thus, your “ad hominem” renders moot. Learn how to use it in the right context.”

“Megaupload cooperated with US authorities previously because it was requested to hold on to illegitimate files stored on their service. Now imagine you’re being sued for doing as you were asked.

This is like the police suing the evidence locker for holding
evidence. It’s absurd and your obfuscation of the true story shows right
through your tissue paper thin agenda and opinion here.”
-Think you need to read the collected evidence in the December 2013 release on ars-technica, before you keep opening your mouth and make an absolute fool out of yourself, whilst you keep reading his Twitter.

As much as I don’t disagree with the assault on his house, the extradition with “racketeering & money laundering” charges, Kim’s interviews have always been making a big loop around the fact that he asked his employees to download TV shows from his own servers.