Ah, the classic tale of modern Robin Hood, living in a mansion with 18 cars and 175M in cash.

Sharing CSAM definitely is a crime. Nuances exist.

>He's a modern day robin hood

He's run or partnered on multiple pump-and-dumps for the better part of 30 years, some of which capitalized on his fanbase.

One of the arguments the government used against Kim and Mega was that they implemented tech to identify and remove CSAM therefore they could have (but chose not to) do the same for material that violated copyright.

I'm not going to defend the guy because he has been involved in a number of shady dealings, but this does seem like an extraordinary amount of effort to go after a guy who ran a website that facilitated pirating of music and movies over a decade ago.

> I'm not going to defend the guy because he has been involved in a number of shady dealings, but this does seem like an extraordinary amount of effort to go after a guy who ran a website that facilitated pirating of music and movies over a decade ago.

Yep, especially compared to other people, who did worse (pedophillia-wise), like Polansky, etc.

Sure, so is commiting murder.

We're talking about software and (well, mostly) media piracy, movies and music here.

> He's run or partnered on multiple pump-and-dumps for the better part of 30 years, some of which capitalized on his fanbase.

Yeah and there is Logan Paul living in US running pump and dumps, scams and other things. But he look nice and popular so he'll continue to do it without any prosecution. As well as many other YouTube personalities. After all they pay taxes to US so they can do it freely.

Again, not protecting Dotcom or like him as person, but he is not some war criminal to justify this kind of effort US put into trying to get him.

> File sharing is not a crime.

Depending on the content, it is.

> He's a modern day robin hood

Robin Hood didn't enrich himself with the stolen goods.

What was stolen if the copyright owner still has their copy?

Profit.

There is no evidence anyone who used their services would of paid. The "theft" is propaganda. In fact from the article itself it even says Mega had a notice and takedown system available to the rights holders. So once again what is it that was stolen?

> There is no evidence anyone who used their services would of paid

Do you mean "would be paid"? But why would anyone pay the users? The uploaders were paid.

> The "theft" is propaganda.

No, it's juridical fact.

> In fact from the article itself it even says Mega had a notice and takedown system available to the rights holders.

Where does it say this? Anyway, this system was bullocks. It was just a poor lip service which they stalled and ignored the whole time.

>Anyway, this system was bullocks. It was just a poor lip service which they stalled and ignored the whole time. I can't unsubscribe easily in one click ? They don't get to complain easily in one click. I can't get easily an email address or phone number to contact them ? They won't get contact info too. They had a taste of their own medicine. It's unfair if it's easier for them to take down my content than for me to appeal the decision.

Please site source where it says theft, since apparently it's a judicial fact. Since last I checked, it says a right was infringed, not theft.[0]. Specifically

"copyright holders, industry representatives, and legislators have long characterized copyright infringement as piracy or theft – language which some U.S. courts now regard as pejorative or otherwise contentious."

And also I'm unsure there is evedence it was ignored, it just seems like you are spewing more copyright propaganda. Might I dare to say they might be in fact lying?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

Nitpicking on words? I guess you must be fun at parties.

Well last I checked words have meanings. And you needing to resort to ad hominen when facts state otherwise is telling, especially since I am the Great Gatsby of parties.