Talk:Kim Dotcom

Modern Warfare 3

It has been has been added several times that Kim Dotcom got a high score in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. All of the sourcing seems to refer back to this YouTube video, which is not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Since he has a lot of money, and is well known for producing expensive video material about nothing (remember the KimVestor fraud?), he could pay to have a good-looking video made to push any point. The video doesn't prove that he really reached #1 in the game. 86.184.161.224 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The claim is proven, but he is no longer #1 because of his time in jail. A claim which is true and sometimes referred as ironic (by the source listed) because it was one of the most pirated games. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite looking, all of the sourcing still seems to come back to the YouTube video, eg here. This should not go into the article without firmer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The article should be edited to point out that Kim Dotcom was/is the #1 player in FFA only (Free For All) game mode of Modern Warfare 3. There are several game modes in Modern Warfare 3 and all of them have separate leaderboards and ranking. The article goves the impression that he #1 in the game overall, whereas no such overall ranking exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.102.144.42 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Embezzlement figures

The share manipulation figures in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Dotcom&oldid=481216893 don't add up. Bought for 375K, sold for 1.5E6, paid 280K then went bankrupt? Where did the rest of the money go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.103 (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Megabox Conspiracy

Stating these two articles as my source, I believe that MegaBox should be included in or near the MegaUpload section.

MegaUpload Is Now Launching a Music Service Called MegaBox...

What Really Killed MegaUpload? Megabox, that's what... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triaddraykin (talk • contribs) 06:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Megaupload#FORBES:_Is_This_The_Real_Reason_Why_MegaUpload_Was_Shut_Down.3F. The FBI investigation was spread over two years, and Megabox did not pick up any media coverage until December 2011. It seems unlikely that this was a major factor, as the Hollywood studios and TV companies were furious with Megaupload for a long time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Money

So Kim Dotcom apparently has tons of money [1] - where did he initially get his investment capital, and where did his current fortune come from? I'm mainly just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.109.70 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is just a guess, but it's likely that his network of sites had plenty of advertising customers, much like any other website. I highly doubt that he made any money off of the content of his websites, if that's what you were thinking. Schiffy (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Statements of Justice Winkelmann

Given the New Zealand Justice's statements concerning the warrants, what does this mean for the websites that were taken down by US Department of Justice? Are the seizures also annulled, or is there still something (legal until proven otherwise) preventing the DoJ from releasing their hold on the network? Schiffy (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What Judge Helen Winkelmann said is that US authorities must show evidence of internet piracy before Dotcom is extradited.[2]. The possibility of the Megaupload site returning is still WP:CRYSTAL, although Kim Dotcom has hinted that the site will return.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Sensational presentation of selected facts combined with overly cynical presentation of others, using a hostile tone throughout, mars the accuracy and neutrality of this article. Examples of the hostile tone and wobbly accuracy of this article abound:

• Kim "tried" to parlay his hacking experience into a career in data security. Two sentences later: Kim founds a data security company. Dangling third paragraph - the company he founded was successful enough to be sold to a large European safety consultancy. We're then linked to the dotcom bubble article (!), and reminded that TÜV-DataProtect experienced a bankruptcy after Dotcom's controlling interest was removed. What? This isn't even subtle. It also reads nothing at all like encyclopedic content about Kim Dotcom.

• Kim's 2002 insider trading case is characterized as "the largest (...) in Germany at the time", but without the important explanation (contained in the cited article) that Germany had broadened its insider trading laws and enforcement powers that same year, and *had only had insider trading laws at all* since 1994.

• Kim's considerable entrepreneurial and charitable acts, such as funding relief efforts following the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, are given mention only as something that he is "keen to point out". Again, the bias here is not even subtle.

• The biographical infobox blurb is clearly stylized to highlight the criminality of his background. Compare this with the similar blurbs on the pages of, for example, Scooter Libby, Dan Rostenkowski, or even the controversial G. Gordon Liddy.

• The article's entire mass is similarly structured - a huge percentage of the article's textual content is centered around subjects that might, in other articles about similar figures, warrant a paragraph or two at most. Meanwhile, meaningful details about the dealings and associations of a very successful internet-era entrepreneur are either not included at all, factually incorrect (Megaupload was not founded in 2005, it was founded as Data Protect Limited in 2003 and renamed to Megaupload in 2005, the same year that Kim Dotcom changed his name), or included anecdotally (i.e. "Dotcom is also keen to point out his charitable works").

• Why have a "Personal life" section with one single sentence in it?