
Kim Dotcom Answers Questions - MrBlue
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/27/200204/interviews-kim-dotcom-answers-your-questions?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
======
typis7
_I 'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder
capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese
investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and
businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have
been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control.
In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that
was setup for my children. As a result of this and a number of other
confidential issues I don't trust Mega anymore. I don't think your data is
safe on Mega anymore. But my non-compete clause is running out at the end of
the year and I will create a Mega competitor that is completely open source
and non-profit, similar to the Wikipedia model. I want to give everyone free,
unlimited and encrypted cloud storage with the help of donations from the
community to keep things going._

~~~
DHowett
If Dotcom wanted an open-source community-supported file sharing platform that
couldn't be taken over by external forces, why did he create the perfect
antithesis to that?

Why did he in fact sign an agreement barring him from competing in that
sector?

I can't understand how somebody who wants such a perfect world consistently
painted himself into a corner from which he couldn't.

~~~
qopp
Maybe for money?

~~~
PopeOfNope
Court cases are expensive.

------
ivank
[http://www.zdnet.com/article/mega-denies-claims-by-kim-
dotco...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/mega-denies-claims-by-kim-dotcom-of-nz-
government-control-of-company/)

~~~
acqq
Even if the title is "Mega denies" they either _confirm_ what Dotcom claims or
simply don't comment.

Dotcom: "In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family
trust that was setup for my children."

Mega: "Mega said that it has 13 percent of its shareholdings subject to two
freezing orders. A 6 percent holding controlled by Dotcom's estranged wife was
frozen in November 2014 by the New Zealand High Court on application by five
Hollywood film studios."

How can this be called a "denial" I don't understand.

~~~
corin_
Firstly, the line you quote said "all the" shares, the fact that 13% have been
frozen doesn't prove or disprove that statement.

Secondly, Dotcom's main claim was the hostile takeover, his family shares were
just a part of that. It could be true that they were frozen but un-true about
the rest of his claims.

So yes, it's a denial of his full claims, but maybe (or maybe not) a
confirmation of one part of his claims that you pulled out.

That said it's obviously a bunch of PR speak that means nothing. For example
this line:

> _" More than 75 percent of shareholders have supported recent equity issues,
> so there has not been any 'hostile takeover', _

You could plot a hostile takeover in which the end, winning, result is that
you own 75% of the shares, that _is_ the takeover. So having shareholder
support when the claim against you is "they took over the company by sneakily
getting shareholder control" is irrelevant.

All in all, it's a denial, but not one with any evidence in either direction.

~~~
acqq
All the "shares in the family trust" seized by "Hollywood" (claimed by Dotcom)
can be exactly the "6 percent holding controlled by Dotcom's estranged wife
(which) was frozen (...) on application by five Hollywood film studios"
(stated by Mega).

On another side "The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese
investor who is wanted in China for fraud." (said by Dotcom) is not commented
by Mega at all (unsurprisingly). So what did Mega actually deny? I claim,
nothing. It's OK if you consider it enough that they call the statement "a
denial" but from my subjective point of view, the press and we, the readers,
should not even accept such a name if there's nothing in the statement that
denies anything Dotcom claimed. I think you actually agree that nothing was
effectively denied, as you also say: "it's obviously a bunch of PR speak that
means nothing." So yes, Mega can call it a denial, but I don't understand how
anybody else can call it so if he/she reads the content of the statement.
Specifically, how can the news agency write the title "Mega denies" and be
trusted? It's not the same as "Mega responds."

------
lcswi
> The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who
> is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses
> to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been
> seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In
> addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that
> was setup for my children.

Huh! I had no idea Mega was publically shared. Why would you do that if your
philosophy was supposed to be privacy, not money?

~~~
jacquesm
It doesn't have to be publicly shared for a hostile take-over to happen. All
that has to happen is that your 'investor' shares constitute a majority and
that those shares end up in the hands of someone that kicks out the C-suite
and replaces them with others.

One way in which this could happen is if the entities holding those shares are
bought (so an indirect hostile takeover).

As an example: one of my companies holds shares in another. If I sell the
parent company the other shares - and their voting rights - will transfer as
well to the new owner. This is because there is no 'change of control' trigger
clause in the shareholder agreement of the daughter company, if there were
then such a change of control could force the company in the middle to offer
its shares to the sitting shareholders of the daughter company.

But even that can still go wrong: the sitting shareholders would have to be
able to meet-or-exceed the value placed on the shares and if they can't the
shares end up in the hands of others.

------
vmay
Can anyone recommend an alternative?

~~~
lcswi
5$ for a 500 gigabyte server, put seafile on it, done.

~~~
GordonS
Where can you get a 500GB server for $5?

~~~
ctz
OVH gives me an Atom-based thing with a 500GB disk for £2.98pm.

~~~
GordonS
I'm looking on the OVH website, but I don't see it?

~~~
JosephRedfern
It's from Kimsufi, OVH's unmanaged, budget offering:
[https://www.kimsufi.com/en/](https://www.kimsufi.com/en/)

------
seqizz
I'm exhausted. Downloading all my data from all "soon-to-be untrusted"
services to my external hdd. That's madness.

~~~
icebraining
Never trust a single location, be it a service, device or person, unless you
don't care about your data. There are tools which can help you keep multiple
copies on multiple services and/or devices.

