
Dotcom alleges Megaupload raid was part of deal to film The Hobbit - qznc
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-13/megaupload-kim-dotcom-opens-up-about-extradition-fight/4752410?section=business
======
gee_totes
Ok, so I strongly disagree that the raid was part of a deal to film The
Hobbit. It would imply some extremely poor negotiation on Warner Brother's
part since the raid happened AFTER production had moved from New Zealand. If
Dotcom was really such a big deal to WB, why not make filming contingent on
him being raided?

Yes, there was a big brew-ha-ha around moving the production of the Hobbit
offshore (from NZ). But that was due to negoations falling apart with the New
Zealand actor's union[0][1]. This is the dispute that lead to negotiations
with NZ's prime minister on 27 October 2010[2]. These negations take place
_after_ the film was greenlit and Peter Jackson (not Guillermo Del Toro) is
confirmed as director.

The result of these negotiations is that film workers in NZ loose their right
to organize.

Now if I were Warner Brothers, and had actually made this deal to have the
government raid Kim Dotcom in exchange for filming The Hobbit, wouldn't I wait
until the raid happened before starting filming to make sure that New Zealand
holds up their end of the bargain?

But, in fact, principal photography on the Hobbit begins on 21 March 2011.
Dotcom is raided 9 months later, in January 2012. By this time, all
photography in New Zealand is finished.

This timeline doesn't add up. What guarantee did Warner Brothers have that New
Zealand would hold up their end of the bargain?

Furthermore, there's no mention of this deal in the e-mails and memos that
were released around the Hobbit filming negotiations in February 2013[3].

[0][http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-new-zealand-peter-
jackson-k...](http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-new-zealand-peter-jackson-
kofi-83734/)
[1][http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10682024)
[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)#Indust...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_\(film_series\)#Industrial_dispute_in_New_Zealand)
[3][http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-files-
released/tabid/1607/arti...](http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-files-
released/tabid/1607/articleID/288190/Default.aspx)

~~~
chc
I don't really buy this story, but I think the intended narrative is that WB
was just shooting for the moon. They would have been ecstatic if New Zealand
delivered a takedown, but it wasn't actually so vital to them that they'd hold
up everything else until it happened.

------
john_b
> _" Unlike its predecessor, Dotcom's new site Mega offers secure encryption,
> which he says protects each user's identity and data."_

I haven't kept up with Mega much lately, but does anyone know if the security
issues identified after the Mega launch were ever fixed (see e.g.
[http://fail0verflow.com/blog/2013/megafail.html](http://fail0verflow.com/blog/2013/megafail.html))?
It seemed like the Mega launch was rushed to take advantage of the free
publicity they were getting, but I would expect that they've had enough time
to get their house in order by now.

~~~
pearjuice
It wouldn't matter. You have no insight in whether Dotcom stores the keys to
decrypt the data somewhere. Unless the entire mega fad is open sourced and we
can verify the code in the repos runs on their webservers, you cannot justify
using Dotcom his bussiness knowing what he has done in the past to obtain
financial gain over the backs of others.

~~~
Dylan16807
It encrypts in the browser, you can check the source code just fine.

~~~
pyre
The issue with browser-based encryption, is that you would have to check the
source code _every_ time that it's served to you.

~~~
jlarocco
Not really.

You can verify it once and generate a secure hash from it. Then the second
time you could just check the hash.

It wouldn't be too difficult to write a browser extension that did it
automatically, or a javascript bookmarklet for it.

~~~
schmrz
But then you have to generate the hash each time the source code changes. And
you also have to verify the source code each time yourself because you can't
know if it's a regular update from mega (they probably update daily or weekly)
or if someone compromised the source code.

~~~
Dylan16807
That sounds like normal software to me. Nobody is forcing you to update unless
the ABI changes. And you can start a mailing list that talks about updates if
you like.

------
mseebach
When a journalist uses the word "alleges" it's only by accident that it
doesn't mean "we know we're reporting a fabrication but it'll get page views".

~~~
damoncali
No, it means, "We'll get sued if we leave those 7 letters out."

~~~
mseebach
"because, no, we don't have a single shread of evidence"

------
benologist
Dotcom fights slide into Old News.

