http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMxhIfG0MpY

What do you guys think, is he really a criminal or just a fighter for freedom of information?

Is his villa and his wealth a fruit of hard labor and dedication or just stolen money?

When he says that we are paying taxing for something that is not done and that governments are becoming increasingly totalitarian, is he just trying to justify his deeds?

One man's criminal/terrorist is another man's freedom fighter/revolutionary.

I'm suspicious of anyone that changes their surname to "Dotcom"

I think the cause he claims to fight for - information freedom - is a just one, but I don't believe for a minute that he actually believes in it. He's just a vain, fat profiteering cunt who preaches about freedom to create a rally of supporters behind him. He's essentially the counterpart of Donald Trump, who preaches a free market economy, a greed is good mentality and supposed democracy, yet cries foul when it bites him on the ass and proves to be the worst role model for good business with countless bankruptcies.

If Kim.Com actually believed in freedom of information, he wouldn't have put it all behind that ridiculous paywall on Megaupload. The Pirate Bay is a much better example of this cause.

Freedom of information? He simply took handling of stolen goods into the digital age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handling_stolen_goods
Instead of paying for something legitimately you could use his services and pay less (i.e. by suffering through adds) while he gets the benefits. I was using Megaupload for legal stuff and it was a very well crafted service, so I was quite sad when they had to shut down, but I really have no sympathy for him. As much as I despise fat ass executives who just sit on their asses doing nothing, this side of the coin isn't any better. There has to be a healthy middle ground between absolute corporate control and complete anarchy.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This. He gets way too much coverage....

That's OK, but he can always defend himself by saying that he created the service for a good purpose and that the users who post illegal stuff are to be blamed. The same thing is with Pirate Bay. They can make money though ads while claiming that they have nothing to do with the illegal stuff that their users post (and 90% of stuff on TPB is illegal content). Both sides will continue making money doing nothing, while users have to stand up with things like stupid DRM policies and big companies being dictating what is offered on the market. It is completely natural that all good companies go big. Who knows, maybe even GOG will become one of these companies that are being hated by users. My point is, we need a way for users to decide what they need, not some executive ass telling us what to play, watch and listen. That's why my hope lays with the indie community.

Anyone who opposes the copyright plutocracy is okay in my book. I don't think everyone is fooled by Kim Dotcom's inyourface antics, but we have an irrational concern troll of the plutocracy in this very thread, and it's not even a page long.

A what?

If you're thinking about the word "концерн", you probably want the word "corporate".

MegaUpload was uncanny...
The one time I downloaded porn from MegaUpload the code word was "WANK".

If impersonal-you are going to argue whether someone who opposes a government is "good" or "evil" (or "inbetween" - I'm watching you, OP), saying "he opposes a government, therefore EVIL" means impersonal-you should stop eating paint and take a remedial course of elementary logic.

So why not oppose the "copyright plutocracy" using lawful means instead of running a file hosting service where the users have all the means to easily share files between each other?

I love how people who host "file hosting" services tend to rationalize that it's the users' fault. They should know that the first thing people will do is try to abuse a system. Don't give them the means or the opportunity and you won't have these problems.

People deserve to make money from works they have created. Copyright allows this. However, works should (and do) come out of copyright in the UK - usually after a period has elapsed after the death of the creator.

I see nothing wrong with a system that allows people and their families to benefit from their own endeavors.

People might object to copyright as it can lead to DRM. However, if people respected intellectual copyright, then there wouldn't be a need for DRM (note that I'm not saying that DRM works, I'm just saying that it's a reaction to copyright theft (albeit a totally ineffective one)).

If it weren't for his larger than life ego (in his case it must have developed it's own gravitational field), I might even feel some kind of sympathy for him. Unfortunately he has a talent to appear most unappealing.

I didn't know he was working on a new VOIP with encryption that won't let US government access it, that sounds interesting. While he did avoid arguements regarding his plausible deniability protection through enscryption on the new Mega I still believe he's doing more good than bad. It says it all when the US government collaborated with Hollywood and uses anti-terrorist tools to catch him. And while we do need a middle ground between absolute corporate control and complete anarchy like HiPhish said in light of this whole Snowden business I believe we need some wins in favour of more freedom when it comes to information and privacy.