Why the Case Against Kim Dotcom Should Be Reconsidered
From Internet King to Political Pawn: The Real Story of Kim Dotcom's Indictment
A Legal Travesty Fueled by Hollywood’s Influence
Hey folks, it’s George from George News. I can finally share that I had the privilege of meeting Kim Dotcom at his New Zealand home a while back—a visit that left an indelible mark and deepened my respect for this embattled innovator. Since then, the world’s been a whirlwind: legacy media obsessing over presidential elections, U.S. immigration debates, DOGE-driven USAID cuts, and the ongoing tragedy in the Middle East dominating headlines. Yet, amidst this chaos, one injustice persists.
Kim Dotcom remains a political prisoner, ensnared by a system that seems more intent on pleasing powerful interests than upholding justice.
If you’re not already familiar with the white paper on the case, titled, ‘The United States vs. You (and Kim Dotcom)’ by Robert Amsterdam and Ira P. Rothkenit, let me tell you right now—it’s a bombshell!
It lays bare why the U.S. case against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload is a house of cards—built on shaky law, dirty tactics, and Hollywood’s iron grip on Washington. With the Trump administration now in charge, it’s time to ditch this case and let Kim Dotcom reclaim his freedom. Here’s why.
The Law Doesn’t Add Up
First off, the legal foundation of this case is a mess. The U.S. government claims Megaupload committed criminal secondary copyright infringement by letting users upload pirated files. But here’s the kicker: secondary copyright infringement isn’t a crime under U.S. law. The white paper points to Dowling v. United States (1985), where the Supreme Court said only Congress can create new crimes, and it hasn’t made secondary infringement one. Trying to pin “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy” on Megaupload falls flat without proof of specific criminal intent, which the government can’t show.
Megaupload was a legit cloud storage platform, used by millions—including U.S. government agencies—for storing family photos, business files, and schoolwork. The Sony Betamax case (1984) protects tech with substantial non-infringing uses, and Megaupload fits that mold perfectly, just like Dropbox. Plus, they followed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to a T, handling countless takedown notices and even giving Hollywood studios like Disney direct access to zap infringing links. The Viacom v. YouTube ruling (2013) backs this up: you don’t lose DMCA protection just because some users might infringe. Legally, this case is a non-starter.
No Jurisdiction, No Dice
Here’s another nail in the coffin: the U.S. doesn’t even have jurisdiction. Megaupload was a foreign company, based in Hong Kong, with no U.S. offices or agents. Federal rules say you need to serve a summons to a U.S.-based officer or address, but that’s impossible here. The Supreme Court’s Omni Capital (1987) ruling makes it clear—without proper service, there’s no jurisdiction. The government’s excuses, like claiming Megaupload knew about the charges, don’t cut it. And U.S. copyright law doesn’t apply overseas unless Congress says so, which it didn’t (Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010). With 90% of Megaupload’s users and most servers abroad, the U.S. is way out of bounds trying to prosecute this.
Dirty Tricks and Due Process Disasters
The way the U.S. went after Kim Dotcom is straight-up shady. The white paper exposes how the government lied in warrant applications, saying Megaupload ignored 39 infringing files when they were actually cooperating with an FBI investigation by keeping them up. That’s not just a mistake—it’s a deliberate twist to paint Megaupload as criminal. These warrants were grabbed ex parte, meaning Kim and his team had no chance to fight back in court, and their assets—$67 million worth—were seized without a hearing, even targeting uninvolved folks like Kim’s wife at the time, Mona Dotcom. That’s a due process trainwreck.
In New Zealand, it gets worse. The U.S. got Kiwi authorities to illegally spy on Kim before and after his 2012 arrest and raid his home with invalid warrants, later ruled unlawful by a New Zealand court. The U.S. also swiped Kim’s data out of the country, breaking New Zealand law. The Prime Minister had to apologize for this mess (BBC News). If that’s not prosecutorial overreach, I don’t know what is.
Hollywood’s Puppet Strings
Now, let’s talk about the real story: Hollywood’s hand in this. The white paper calls this a “contract prosecution,” and it’s hard to argue otherwise. The MPAA, led by former Senator Chris Dodd, had it out for Megaupload, branding it a “notorious market” in 2010 and pushing the FBI to investigate.
Dodd, cozy with then-Vice President Joe Biden (they were Senate buddies for decades), turned up the heat after SOPA tanked in 2012. Dodd’s threat to cut off Obama’s campaign cash if Hollywood’s interests weren’t protected was no joke (Fox News). The very next day, Megaupload was hit, its servers shut down, and Kim was dragged from his home in a Hollywood-style raid—complete with helicopters and attack dogs.
This smells like a deal: Biden delivers Megaupload to keep Hollywood’s checks flowing. The white paper calls it “State Capture,” where private interests like the MPAA bend the government to their will through lobbying and donations. The fact that the case landed in Virginia, where Biden’s former aide Neil MacBride was U.S. Attorney, isn’t a coincidence. It’s a rigged game.
Kim’s Health and the Human Cost
Fast forward to 2025, and Kim Dotcom’s life has taken a brutal turn. In November 2024, he suffered a stroke, leaving him with memory loss, speech issues, and needing a wheelchair (NZ Herald). He’s fighting an extradition order from August 2024, still in New Zealand, but his health makes shipping him to the U.S. seem cruel. After 13 years of legal battles, asset seizures, and a destroyed business, hasn’t he been through enough?
Why Trump Should End This Now
With President Trump back in the White House, there’s a chance to fix this injustice. The case is a legal dumpster fire—no crime, no jurisdiction, and a laundry list of violations. It’s tainted by Hollywood’s influence and Biden’s political games, which should raise red flags for an administration focused on draining the swamp. The white paper even calls for a DOJ investigation into this mess (Page 48), and Trump’s team could make that happen.
Add Kim’s health crisis, and continuing this fight looks not just wrong but heartless.
Kim Dotcom isn’t a pirate. He’s an innovator, who not only created and patented ‘2FA’ security authentication that we all use on a daily basis, (then open sourced it for free as a gift to humanity) he built a platform that was loved by millions. The real crime here is how the government, egged on by Hollywood, tried to make an example of him. The Trump administration can show the world it stands for fairness by dropping this case and halting extradition.
He’s already paid a heavy price. Let him focus on his recovery and family. We owe him that at the very least.
What Do You Think?
This case is a wake-up call about how far special interests can push the government to crush innovation and freedom. I’ve seen Kim’s resilience firsthand, and it’s time to give him a break. Should the Trump White House end this saga? Absolutely! Hit the comments and let me know what you think. And if you’re as fired up as I am, please share this to spread the word.
Legal Flaws in the Case
No Criminal Liability for Secondary Copyright Infringement:
The U.S. government’s case hinges on criminal secondary copyright infringement, alleging Megaupload facilitated user-driven copyright violations. However, U.S. law does not recognize secondary copyright infringement as a criminal offense. The Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.) establishes civil and criminal liability for direct infringement but not for third-party actions (Page 20, citing MGM Studios v. Grokster). The Supreme Court in Dowling v. United States (473 U.S. 207, 1985) emphasized that only Congress can define new criminal liabilities, and it has not done so for secondary infringement (Page 20). The prosecution’s attempt to use “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy” theories lacks legal grounding, as these require “double willfulness” (specific intent to commit a crime and knowledge of its illegality), which is absent here.
DMCA Safe Harbor Protections:
Megaupload complied with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provisions (17 U.S.C. § 512), which shield service providers from liability if they respond to takedown notices. The white paper notes that Megaupload responded to “countless” DMCA notices and went further by granting major copyright holders (e.g., Disney, Warner Brothers) direct server access to remove infringing links without formal procedures (Page 4, Page 29). The Viacom v. YouTube ruling (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56646) confirms that generalized knowledge of infringement does not negate safe harbor protections, and providers have no duty to proactively monitor content (Page 4). Megaupload’s proactive measures, including preventing search engine indexing, further demonstrate compliance (Page 29).
Substantial Non-Infringing Uses:
Megaupload was a legitimate cloud storage platform with millions of users storing non-infringing content like family photos, business archives, and academic materials (Page 3, Page 18). The Supreme Court’s Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (464 U.S. 417, 1984) protects technologies with substantial non-infringing uses, and Megaupload’s business model—similar to Dropbox—fits this category (Page 18). The government’s claim that Megaupload was solely a piracy operation is baseless given its widespread legitimate use, including by U.S. government agencies and military personnel (Wikipedia: Megaupload legal case).
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction:
The U.S. lacks jurisdiction over Megaupload, a foreign corporation with no U.S. offices or agents (Page 5, Page 29). Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 4 requires serving a summons to an organization’s U.S.-based officer or address, which is impossible for Megaupload (Page 30). The Supreme Court in Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. (484 U.S. 97, 1987) mandates proper service for jurisdiction, and the prosecution’s arguments to bypass this (e.g., claiming “minimum contacts” or awareness of charges) are legally invalid (Page 31). Without jurisdiction, the case cannot proceed in U.S. courts.
Extraterritoriality Issues:
U.S. copyright law does not apply extraterritorially unless Congress explicitly states so, which it has not (Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2010; Page 32). Most of Megaupload’s operations and 90% of its users were outside the U.S., with servers in countries like The Netherlands and Canada (Page 34). The indictment fails to allege specific infringing acts within the U.S., undermining its legal basis (Page 34). The Supreme Court’s Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013) reinforces that U.S. laws don’t govern foreign conduct without clear congressional intent (Page 33).
Due Process and Procedural Violations
Misrepresentation and Omission of Exculpatory Evidence:
The U.S. government misrepresented facts in warrant applications, claiming Megaupload failed to remove 39 infringing files when it was actually cooperating with an FBI investigation by preserving them (Page 5, Page 37). This omission of exculpatory evidence—Megaupload’s cooperation—distorted the company’s intent, a critical element for criminal liability. The ex parte nature of these warrant requests prevented Megaupload from defending itself, violating due process (Page 37).
Illegal Actions in New Zealand:
New Zealand authorities, acting on U.S. direction, illegally spied on Kim Dotcom before and after his arrest and conducted a raid on his home using invalid warrants, later ruled unlawful by a New Zealand court (Page 7, Page 37; BBC News). The U.S. also illegally transferred Dotcom’s data out of New Zealand, violating his privacy rights (Page 7). These actions, acknowledged by a public apology from New Zealand’s Prime Minister, discredit the prosecution’s legitimacy.
Ex Parte Asset Seizures:
The U.S. seized all of Megaupload’s and Dotcom’s global assets, including those of unindicted third parties, without notice or a hearing (Page 5, Page 15). This ex parte seizure, coupled with the inability to serve a summons, left Megaupload unable to challenge the order or fund a defense, violating due process (Page 5, Page 35). The government’s refusal to release funds for preserving server data, critical for the defense, further prejudices Dotcom (Page 5).
Political Motivations and State Capture
The white paper argues that the prosecution was a “contract prosecution” driven by the MPAA, which labeled Megaupload a “notorious market” in 2010 and lobbied the FBI to investigate (Page 7, Page 39). After SOPA’s failure in January 2012, the MPAA, led by former Senator Chris Dodd, leveraged its relationship with then-Vice President Joe Biden to push for Megaupload’s takedown (Page 8, Page 38). Dodd’s threat to withhold Hollywood’s campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle suggests political pressure influenced the timing and nature of the prosecution (Page 8, Page 40). The choice of the Eastern District of Virginia, where Biden’s former Chief Counsel Neil MacBride was U.S. Attorney, further indicates political motivations (Page 9).
This influence amounts to “State Capture,” where private interests (MPAA) shape government actions through financial leverage (Page 10, Page 44). The MPAA’s history of securing tax breaks, influencing legislation like SOPA, and affecting international trade agreements (e.g., TRIPS) demonstrates its undue influence (Page 10, Page 11).
Humanitarian and Current Context
As of June 27, 2025, Kim Dotcom is recovering from a severe stroke suffered in November 2024, which has left him with memory loss, speech impairment, and wheelchair use (NZ Herald). An extradition order was signed in August 2024, but he remains in New Zealand, fighting the case (RNZ News). His health condition makes extradition potentially inhumane, adding a humanitarian argument for dismissal.
The case’s political origins, tied to the Obama administration and Biden, contrast with the current Trump administration’s potential to review and rectify such overreaches. The white paper calls for investigations by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (Page 48), which the Trump administration could pursue.
In a Nutshell: Why the Case Should Be Thrown Out
Legal Invalidity: Secondary copyright infringement isn’t a crime, and Megaupload’s DMCA compliance and non-infringing uses negate liability.
Jurisdictional Overreach: The U.S. lacks jurisdiction over a foreign entity, and extraterritorial application of U.S. law is unsupported.
Due Process Violations: Misrepresentations, illegal actions in New Zealand, and ex parte seizures undermine the case’s fairness.
Political Motivations: Evidence of MPAA influence and Biden’s role suggests the prosecution served Hollywood’s interests, not justice.
Humanitarian Concerns: Dotcom’s health crisis warrants reconsideration of extradition. The Trump administration has an opportunity to correct this injustice by halting extradition and dismissing the case, aligning with principles of fairness and rule of law.
You can subscribe to Kim Dotcom’s Substack below:
