"Kim Dotcom has publicly accused Joe Biden of ordering the shutdown of his Megaupload website in coordination with Chris Dodd. As evidence, Dotcom cites the public White House visitor log which shows visits from Dodd and the CEOs of Warner Brothers, Paramount Pictures, Walt Disney and Universal Studios all on the same day in July 2011. Also visiting that day was Mike Ellis, former superintendent of the Hong Kong Police and currently an MPAA Asia division executive. The MPAA publicly denies that Ellis is a known extradition expert and has dismissed Dotcom's claims. - Source [http://betabeat.com/2012/07/mpaa-kim-dotcom-joe-biden-chris-...]
"
> Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.
it's only a matter of time, the subject has already been prepared by saying that terrorism is helped by copyright infringement, this is a gateway.
Before 2001 there where no concentration camps in the US, now there is Guantanamo bay, also terrorism was way lower in 2001 than it was in the 70's/80's (look at Italy, France, UK).
There where no official State-planned torture (only rogue soldiers in war) now there are "procedures".
The idea is two stepped: 1) "everything is acceptable under terrorism" 2) "we can bring links to terrorism to some other matters".
For now I think linking copyright infringement to terrorism is not effective (it's been pushed for a few years), but that might change.
Concentration Camps? Are you really going to make that parallel, we're talking about less than 200 prisoners, who are well-fed, guarded by soldiers who must go out of their way not to offend their charges' religion. Americans in jail for minor drug possession are treated worse than Gitmo prisoners. As far as torture, you don't know anything about which you type. Ask the Vietnamese, Chinese, Iranians, Russians and Turks about torture, then waterboarding will seem like a 5 year old girl's birthday party. It's very easy to be sanctimonious from the comfort of your chair.
Make your argument, but don't venture into hyperbole fueled by Michael Moore delusions.
As far as terrorism being helped by copyright infringement, that IS a stretch. It's like saying terrorism is helped by Coca-Cola sales because some rogue mosque happens to have a Coke machine.
That waterboarding seems "like a 5 year old girl's birthday party" tells us that either a. there is no torture so bad as a children's party (as a parent, I can relate!), or b. that the torture dished out by the Vietnamese, Chinese, Iranians, Russians and Turks is truly horrific.
However, it is interesting that you bring up the torture used by a number of countries, because guess what? It was used extensively in China and Cambodia. Not to mention by the Pinocet regime in Chile, by the South African police under Apartheid, and even all the way back to Spanish Inquisition.
In fact, the underlying assumption you are using when you compare waterboarding to the torture used by other countries is the invalid premise that torture performed in America can never be as bad as the torture performed in other countries who have historically had poor human rights records. This is a falacious argument.
To remind you exactly what waterboarding is:
You bind an individual, then place a cloth over the subject's mouth and eyes. You strap them to an inclined bench. You then poor water over the cloth which restricts air flow. You then poor water for 20 to 40 seconds continuously on the cloth. This causes the subject to believe they are drowning (Fox News, not exactly a bastion of independent reporting, once did a demonstration and the subject gagged).
You then let the subject take two or three breaths and repeat. This process can be repeated for up to 20 to 30 minutes. That's 20 to 30 minutes of becoming close to drowning.
You say this is not significant torture? Either you are dissembling, or you are ignorant. Either way, you are wrong. It is torture pure and simple. People have actually drowned in U.S. custody while being water boarded, so you can't ever argue that it's not mortally dangerous.
None of what I'm saying is even remotely delusional. I took all of this information from well documented facts, one of which was a report from the U.S. Office of Legal Counsel.
Water boarding is a disgusting and heinous act. Those using it should be charged with the crime of torture. Anyone advocating it should be treated with contempt.
Torture: there is waterboarding and also some prisoners where sent to third party countries to be tortured there (which is an operation complex enough that there was some official involvement) and some others where tortured directly in their country of capture (at such a scale, and for finding so important information that I don't really believe these were only rogue CIA agents).
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.
Interesting video, but the whole things seems to be blown out of proportion. The video cost US$5,000. The funders were two people working in financial services, outside of the US. Given the title, I was expecting a heck of a lot more.
Often wondered why those with serious money don't do more of these type of gestures. I certainly hope to be able to do this when/if I get into the position that I can.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360390