Skip to footer

Kim Dotcom: Are such Internet sensations pirates or hactivists?

Kim Dotcom, SOPA: Copyright law and its enforcement have dominated recent headlines, first with the Internet blackout protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US Congress, and then with the arrest in New Zealand of Megaupload's Kim Dotcom on charges of online piracy crimes in the US. But the issue of online, large-scale file sharing – and the risk of associated copyright violation – is not new.  Here are five international players who have been targets of copyright enforcement.

Kim Dotcom

Reuters/File
German Internet millionaire Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz poses beside a car in Hong Kong in this 1999 file photo.

  • By Arthur Bright Correspondent

The most recent target of US copyright enforcement efforts is Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload.com, a Hong Kong-based company that operated an "Internet locker" service. Users could anonymously store and transfer huge amounts of data, including movies, software, and other media files – many of which the US says are illegal copies. Mr. Dotcom was arrested last Friday in his Auckland, New Zealand, mansion on charges of racketeering and copyright infringement in the US. 

The indictment says that Dotcom and Megaupload are responsible for $500 million in damages to copyright holders and earned $175 million in ad sales and subscriptions to the locker service. Dotcom, who says he is innocent, could face 20 years in prison if convicted.

Dotcom, born Kim Schmitz in Germany, is a colorful character who built up his own reputation as an Internet "bad boy" through YouTube videos of his extravagant, and sometimes illegal, behavior. Dotcom's videos, now unavailable, featured him racing sports cars on public streets, cavorting with bikini-clad models, and enjoying other luxuries, writes tech news site CNet. But his "bad boy" act is not necessarily bravado; in 1998, he was convicted of fraud and hacking charges in Germany, and in 2002, he was convicted of insider trading, also in Germany.

A New Zealand judge denied bail to Dotcom, expressing concern that he might flee to Germany, a country with no extradition treaty with the US.

1 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.