[preaching5271]

I appreciate Kim Dotcom for running MegaUpload and later Mega, in a time when the internet was younger and wilder. Also for his pirate spirit and "stick it to the man" attitude. But everything has a limit, specifically his resistance against the law, even if he hid it behind virtues. I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? But people are superficial and tend to develop an "i'm the main character" personality, pushing them into recklessness, like persisting doing certain things or publicly talking shit. Hope he and his family will be ok.

[oceanplexian]

> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?

The problem is that government doesn’t have a line, that line is defined by the resistance it faces. Today it might be people sharing MP3s, tomorrow they will come after you for hosting a parody of mickey mouse. 10 years from now they’ll be busting down doors for sharing illegal memes (Seems to already be the case in the UK).

Sitting by passively and praying that the system will come to its senses is a fool’s errand. Copyright holders, the government, and powerful interests are entities that have no problem playing dirty.

[rustcleaner]

To add: you know with the stable-diffusion function, there are ranges of vectors whereby technically just conjuring them is 15 years federal and possessing them is 5 each. That is 20-25% of a lifetime in one, 7.5% in the other!

You know how nuts that sounds to me as a mathematician?!

[philistine]

> (Seems to already be the case in the UK)

[Citation needed]

[PaulRobinson]

> 10 years from now they’ll be busting down doors for sharing illegal memes (Seems to already be the case in the UK).

UK law does not prohibit memes. It prohibits incitement to riot, as does US law. It prohibits incitement to murder, as does US law. In fact, these acts are illegal in almost every democracy in the World, even the most progressive and liberal ones, because they are reasonable statutes to extend common law (protecting people and their property from damage by others).

In recent weeks, a young man born in Wales to Rwandan-born Christian migrant parents, diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders, stabbed three 6-year old girls to death at a dance class. He attempted to murder the other children in the class, and the adults who intervened.

The "illegal memes" as you put it, were that he was a foreign-born Muslim who had entered the country illegally (all aspect of this narrative are false), and that people should riot to show their displeasure, and kill Muslim migrants to "save our children".

Seeing these "facts", mobs rioted in multiple towns over the course of a week, injured multiple (unarmed) police officers, caused tens of millions of pounds in damage to private property, and attempted to burn down a hotel with 200+ migrants (including children), staying in it, while many people of colour were individually attacked, their shops looted, their homes and cars damaged, and so on.

Arresting and charging the people who did these things is an obvious priority.

Arresting and charging the people who spread misinformation (I believe it was actually disinformation - purposeful, intentful lies), and suggesting that riots and murder should take place, are just as guilty of incitement in the UK as they would be anywhere else in the World.

The internet is not a fantasy land. What you post has real World consequences. If you get together in a private forum and plan to kidnap, rape and kill a celebrity (a case also tried in the UK recently), that's not "online meme banter", that's conspiracy to kidnap, rape and murder. You're going to prison, you're a threat to public safety.

The lines you say the government don't have, they're there. They're called "laws". Some of them are arguably unjust - I've campaigned against some IP law extensions in the past, including the introduction of software patents in the EU (when the UK was still a member), and think RIPA was a tragedy of law making - but to say that laws are irrelevant and action is defined only by the resistance a government faces is absurdly cynical, naive, and simply not true.

Your last sentence leads to an obvious question: what do you think people should do instead of "sitting by passively and praying that the system will come to its senses"? Do you think inciting riots and murder are the way to go?

[ranger_danger]

> Sitting by passively and praying

Curious what you have done instead?

[sam345]

Mp3s were yesterday literally long time ago. Parody is always legal. And Mickey mouse by the way is way past copyright. Don't you know at least the original.

[rustcleaner]

>that line is defined by the resistance it faces

THIS is why the Second Amendment. It's easy to revenge-kill a crazy, it's harder to revenge-kill a government. Keep your governments small and your crazies armed!

[gliiics]

It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money was. But:

> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?

Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

[throwup238]

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

[PhasmaFelis]

I think there's a significant difference between someone who does the right thing despite personal risk (because it's that important), and someone who does the profitable thing despite personal risk (because they can't imagine the rules actually applying to them).

[lenerdenator]

Whistleblowing is not the same as hosting pirated material.

[scotty79]

> > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

Or maybe even more generally to people like Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet? Because maybe at some point enough should be enough?

[jrflowers]

Snowden quit working for the NSA and left the country, and Assange does not appear to be operating Wikileaks anymore. I would imagine that they would both agree that there comes a point where it makes sense to factor consequences into your choices and quit what you are doing.

[brailsafe]

>> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

I don't think it's a relevant comparison, but I do think that particular suggestion should apply to them. Imo a fundamental component of "succeeding" in Western culture is in how quickly you learn which parts of which systems act on perverse incentives or actively against the good of the people, and subsequently being able read the room when there's an opportunity to play hero; sticking your neck out might earn you a smily face sticker next to your obituary, but more likely it'll end up screwing you, and it's naive and/or arrogant to think that this time will be different and you'll singlehandedly rid the ocean of pollution (metaphorically). Realizing that you can't rid the ocean of pollution doesn't mean you should start dumping more trash into it, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't do your civic duty to reduce your personal waste, but it does mean you have to set your ego aside for your own benefit, because in practice and in all likelihood you'll make practically zero or even very negative difference, and put a real tangible target on your back, in whichever context this plays out.

Could be a safety meeting at your company in which you're just a peon and you feel like speaking up about a code violation, could be that you're a young Mr Beast employee that wants to vouch for their co-worker who's making less but doing more, or it could be that you want to make your company's website more accessible, in any case, unless you very clearly have the latitude to do so and control over the outcome, don't, because you'll screw yourself or someone else.

Drive as well as you can in your lane, whatever that means to you, and if you don't like it, signal and change lanes, then do it again.

This also means not overexerting oneself on things that require real tangible sacrifice but have only tenuous, nebulous, or only marginally more financially beneficial outcomes. Don't sacrifice too much time alone or with your partner or family or in nature for shipping yet another arbitrary AI SaaS bs product that will disappear in a week, pick the relevant battles and demand am important outcome, we don't have enough time to squander on such asinine missions. Again, that doesn't mean don't do work, or earn money, or help others, or whatever, just be careful how much of your life you trade for some 1s and 0s.

[rustcleaner]

>Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?

No, you make tools which are easily copied and spread which disempower states and groups and instead empower individuals to act unimpeded. You make tools which make it impossible to enforce copyright or any other state imperative because everybody has the tools needed to neutralize the group attempting to use force.

The correct answer is to formulate software and memes (human software) which act as viruses which infect the local carriers of the overall social operating system (in America it is some flavor of American Westernism), turning the original operating system non-functional (Bezmenov's demoralization), and steamroll the reigning technocratic elite off top the tiger and install yourselves, or your StateDAO, or whatever.

When the system is going to take at least a decade, that should be treated as a pending life sentence or execution, and I admire anyone who fights it to the death even. Just don't go in, get housed in concrete, work for $0.68/hour they deduct 75% for housing from and then sell you bricks of Ramen for $1, while dodging shivs from behind. At that point it is too late to act to defend yourself!

You need a year of this treatment if you disagree with me!

[dennis_jeeves2]

Thanks, your response made my day. In practice though it's a lonely and a difficult battle for those who are even remotely capable, most of us or not. Side note: I'd argue that the larger problem is not the state, it the masses who enable them, by their ignorance and stupidity.

[malwrar]

The problem is, then they just go after the tools. There’s absolutely nothing stopping one from creating a pirate streaming tool based on e.g. torrents, but popcorntime doesn’t exist precisely because the movie industry frowned intensely at them. The core problem is that the government, if compelled to act, seems able to do whatever it wants to protect rich people’s interests. Cute loopholes like making tools vs sharing content are covered over eventually, hell even links are taken down now by DMCA requests.

[Krasnol]

> Also for his pirate spirit and "stick it to the man" attitude.

When the internet was even younger, and he called himself Kimble, he sold out other pirates to save his own ass.

His attitude is of a selfish and greedy person. Nothing to be admired.

[jagermo]

> i'm the main character" personality

he always had this and has always been selling snake oil. He might gotten some clout with mega but he always has been a charlatan.

https://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/kimble/

[kaliqt]

This is the wrong position to take. The government is wrong, and a bully, the answer is not to give them what they want.

[mike_d]

How is the government wrong? He is being charged with money laundering and wire fraud, both things that require pretty substantial paper trails to prove in court.

I think enough time has passed that I can say this openly: I worked for an ad network that was used by MegaUpload. Most of the traffic from his site was fraudulent bot traffic. Mysterious advertisers would repeatedly rebuy ad placements that were clearly not generating any returns. There was definitely things that didn't add up to the point I would error on the side of believing the government on this one.

[bdcravens]

Was he trying to stick it to the man, or find a way to enrich himself off of content that people were already sharing? There's a lot of retcon-ing those like him, Ross Ulbricht, etc as freedom fighters, when the truth is they were simply capitalists.

[microtherion]

Kim Dotcom is simply a career criminal, settling on piracy after having previously been convicted of trafficking in stolen phone calling cards and embezzlement. He simply figured out a crime that is socially more accepted than what he engaged in previously, but it was always about the money for him.

[joshcryer]

So I remember sharing a file to my brother and "uploading" it over very slow DSL at the time (I think I was getting 100kbps a second or something). The file was copyrighted, a TV show, Supernatural, or something like that. Anyway, the upload was instant. Apparently Megaupload would do a quick hash of the file (not sure if it was in browser or probably more likely the first 100k bits or something of the file), and if it was a file that was already on their servers, they would just make a new download link for it, and the "upload" would finish. Links would be taken down by DMCA notices from forums and other file sharing sites (back then you could get good money making affiliate links and such, so people did a lot of their own uploading). But your private links and links you didn't share would remain. The files remained.

The fact that they did the hashing thing and kept the files locally really, incontrovertibly, proved they weren't deleting the files themselves when a notice went out. And that they were aware the hashed file was given a DMCA notice. This one little thing, probably to save bandwidth (and convivence for the end user of course; though outside of Linux ISOs there's little question what kind of files people are sharing), screwed him.

Anyway, #freeRossUlbricht (Yes I know he tried to make a hit out and a lot of people died from drugs he enabled to be sold, but the hit never happened and the drug users were consenting adults.) A life sentence is insane. 20 years? OK. Life? Heck he rejected a plea deal that would've given him 10... bet he regrets that now.

[gscott]

Youtube became popular over similar sites (like Vimeo) by hosting pirated tv episodes. But one was started by ex-Paypal founders and the other bootstrapped (MegaUpload).

Worse, while MegaUpload followed the letter of the law by doing removals of content that was reported as pirated they fell afoul of the law by stringently going after child pornographers and a court decided they can do that then they could do the same for piracy. So, they followed the law but, in their case, now the law is something entirely different and unexpected.

[mr_toad]

> Was he trying to stick it to the man, or find a way to enrich himself

You could ask the same question about the Hollywood studios that were built on evading patents.

What he did was clearly illegal - because the studios make the laws.

[TeeMassive]

> Was he trying to stick it to the man, or find a way to enrich himself

Why not both?

[rodgerd]

Yeah, large scale copyright theft for profit is something that you're only allowed to do if your name is "Sam Altman".

[akira2501]

I'd go with "Anarcho-capitalist."

Which of course explains their allure and the desire to retroactively improve their origin stories. They stand precisely in the face of what the OP himself retroactively considers.

> "I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved."

Which is the mantra of the bullied. As if we aren't the government. When precisely did we all decide that copyright should exist for a term of life PLUS 70 years? The government does not seek our permission when applying these laws to us yet we have to implicitly sacrifice our freedoms in order to blithely comply with it?

And we all know that the problems with these individuals is not that they committed these crimes, it's that they explicitly called into question this very authority in the first place. That the government then uses this as further justification to destroy these individuals lives, permanently destroy their liberty, and broadcast a chilling effect over anyone who would ever attempt to improve these policies is what inspires people to lionize these figures.

[big-green-man]

You can fight for freedom while being a capitalist. In fact, you can fight for freedom with capitalism.

[riedel]

I still do wonder also in the light of Julian Assange why in the age oft the Internet one always need to worried about extradiction. Why cannot New Zealand handle the crimes or maybe Germany where he is citizen. Also in the age of the internet a remote trial should even be possible and if the US is keen on it they can pay for the prison in New Zealand. Not saying I like him or what he did. But this always seems so political.

[bulbosaur123]

> I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved.

Russia or China wouldn't have extradited him.

Also, he'd probably live a peaceful, wonderful life had he not flexed and talked shit on Twitter so much.

[fennecfoxy]

Yes but he also let his true colours show through when it came to his treatment of New Zealand, as a safe haven to run from the law rather than a home. He wanted to stick his nose into politics and start twisting things using his wealth there too, to the point that many Kiwis couldn't give a shit about what happens to him.

[colordrops]

If everyone just sat back and allowed the powers to do what they please, we'd have absolutely nothing in this world. Countless have spilled blood or have been killed over the fight for freedom in the past giving us the humanist open society we have now. The fight is never over.

[FredPret]

This isn't a clear-cut case of humanism vs something else.

Humanist values include right to property ownership, and the right to get the benefits of your work. Artists deserve that, and can sell their rights to big studios if they want.

Just because it's easy to copy something, or just because studio execs were idiots who wouldn't get on board with streaming, or whatever else, doesn't mean it's morally right to copy someone's work for free.

[swayvil]

I can think of a worse habit.

[shafyy]

I don't know, Kim Dotcom's Wikipedia page reads like the one of sociopath criminal that masquerades as a fighter of the people against "the man". But the dude has done some real illegal shit, beyond "just" illegal file sharing. Some examples, but go read his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

> Schmitz was arrested in March 1994 for selling stolen phone numbers and held in custody for a month. He was arrested again in 1998 on more hacking charges and convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud and 10 counts of data espionage. He was given a two-year suspended sentence; the judge of the case described Schmitz's actions as "youthful foolishness".

> In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump,resulting in a €1.5 million profit for Schmitz.

Also, that he used many of these things to enrich himself and live a lavish lifestyle does not exactly make him more likeable to me.

[mjt91]

>In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump,resulting in a €1.5 million profit for Schmitz.

This is just _dumb money_. Also I dont see how this is different to many crypto marketeers today.

[majani]

If someone spends just one day on a video production set at any level, they will never pirate media again.

[sizzle]

Who is running mega.co.nz? It looks like a superior offering compared to mega upload with sophisticated encryption and decoding.

[KeplerBoy]

Kim runs it. Isn't it the defacto successor to the now defunct mega upload?

[DaoVeles]

Alas for many negative things to take flight, they will always make a call to virtue.

[Suppafly]

unrelated, but why is your username a different color than the others in this thread?

[mesmertech]

its that color for people who recently signed up

[heraldgeezer]

>I appreciate Kim Dotcom for running MegaUpload and later Mega, in a time when the internet was younger and wilder.

I like this. Us internet boomers got to learn and get everything for free. The new kids coming in are paywalled to hell :)

[bloqs]

only in the avenues you continue to inhabit. New aventues that you dont are flourishing with the same human spirit to work around paying for things that have persisted forever

[stainablesteel]

not really, his website was based on hong kong, this is a fight against america playing world police, which i'm on board with

they have no business going after just a single man so fervently, he's a foreign national and the websites weren't based in the US

[z_]

Mega stored files in the US, Carpathia and Cogent were the providers specifically.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case

[tim333]

He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. And unlike say normal use of bittorrent, making a lot of money off it. And being the largest player doing that. I'm not sure about the morals but you can certainly understand financially why they've gone after him.

[tick_tock_tick]

New Zealand is for all practical purposes a USA protectorate. If you want to break USA law don't do it in a country that is dependent on the USA.

[kube-system]

Copyright is protected by international treaty.

[Cody-99]

Being based in a foreign country doesn't mean you aren't committing a crime. Cyber criminals, drug traffickers, money launders, etc are all still on the hook even though they operate in a different country.

Also what he was doing is also a crime in NZ otherwise he wouldn't be extradited.

[sandworm101]

>> this is a fight against america playing world police

That is how Dotcom wants it characterized. Everyone else sees a fly-by-night website run by an eccentric millionaire making money by playing fast and loose with the law. It is one thing to be an outlaw subverting oppression by distributing free bread to poor people. It is another to be a bootlegger selling vodka under the table and then throwing huge invite-only parties with the profits.

[stalfosknight]

If not the US, then who do you suggest could plausibly lead (I would even say prop up) the free world and the global economy?

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved.

I'm far more concerned with the stuff that governments get away with, including infringement of the freedom to share information.

[preaching5271]

Totally fair point, but what can you do? This is how the world works. Fighting such beasts is pointless. You might tame them with lobby money, but no billionaire is interested. And we're now talking about the human spirit that cannot be chained, as also seen in Pirate Bay or Snowden. Sure, people do need heroes and hope from time to time. But I have become less romantic over the years, and more careful.

[somastoma]

Elon Musk comes to mind...

[itsoktocry]

>But people are superficial and tend to develop an "i'm the main character" personality

How on earth are you labeling the people persistent to a fault "superficial"???

[halyconWays]

There's no evidence that piracy causes any type of harm to these multi-trillion dollar American entertainment conglomerates. Moving heaven and earth to extract a citizen from another country using the power of the state, and drag him before their feet is tyrannical.

[hylaride]

> There's no evidence that piracy causes any type of harm to these multi-trillion dollar American entertainment conglomerates.

I think there is business "harm" to piracy, but it's (mostly) vastly overstated. If I illegally download a song/movie I wouldn't have otherwise bought, did anybody lose out? There was a reason Napster was popular in colleges, because many of those people were cash poor. Music industry revenue peaked in 2000 at $21B and went down to ~$7B in 2015 before steadily growing again. Also, the entertainment industry are not multi-trillion dollar conglomerates. Not even close. Disney is worth $160B and Netflix is $260B.

That being said, if it were up to the music industry we'd still be paying the inflation adjusted equivalent of $20 for an album we only like one song on and we wouldn't be able to create out own playlists. You can only fight the consumer for so long (and they fought long and hard). That's to say nothing about the morality of repeatedly increasing copyright from 14 years to life plus 70 (which is BS). The Beatles' great great grandchildren (or whoever owns the rights later on) shouldn't still be benefiting from intellectual property.

> Moving heaven and earth to extract a citizen from another country using the power of the state, and drag him before their feet is tyrannical.

This is what rule of law is. KDC knew he was breaking the law and not only didn't do anything about it, but invested in an encouraged it to benefit himself financially. Even after being charged and having megaupload shut down, he then tried again. Do you really feel sorry for him?

[nkmnz]

Here's your evidence: I would have bought House on DVD 15 years ago if there hadn't been the option to stream it illegally.

You might object this evidence by telling me that you bought all seasons of House only because you had been streaming it illegally before, and that you wouldn't have done so without previously streaming it – but in most jurisdictions, this kind of "business procurement" does not cancel out the harm done in the first case.

Anyways, the burden to disprove the harm done through me not buying it is on you.

[dangus]

There is a ton of evidence. Ask Snoop Dogg how much money he gets from streaming compared to CD sales. Look at how badly industry revenue has collapsed. It literally never recovered fully since Napster.

https://www.statista.com/chart/17244/us-music-revenue-by-for...

It is an industry that employs real people from artists to studio engineers to musical instrument and equipment companies to the bartenders at the venues. Those people are sharing a smaller pie than they used to before Internet piracy devalued their music.

In your opinion it's tyrannical. Sure, most certainly a non-violent crime against a wealthy corporation isn't on the same level as murder or assault. At the same time, copyright infringement is conceptually not that different from property crime.

You would want the police to arrest someone who broke into your home and stole your movie collection.

You wouldn't want to spend a year writing code for your micro-SaaS product and then have a hacker breach your infrastructure, steal your work and sell it on their own website.

It's really a grand piece of irony for software engineers that depend on enforceable copyright law to put food on their table to call this arrest tyranny. If nobody can go to jail or be fined for copyright infringement then I hate to say it but you are going to need to quit your job writing software and start driving a city bus or something.

Don't forget that Megaupload was specifically designed to enable piracy and discourage other uses of the technology. It wasn't a file storage service that could be used for legitimate personal use because unpopular downloads would be deleted. The company actually paid people via an incentive program to upload popular files that were copyright infringing. This wasn't just "YouTube is bad at playing whack-a-mole with DMCA claims," this was a company that was responsible for something like 4% of all Internet piracy all by itself and actively encouraged it.

It's not like they were a company that didn't have access to lawyers who could warn them not to do what they did. Kim deserves his fate because his own hubris invited it.

[burningChrome]

>> There's no evidence that piracy causes any type of harm to these multi-trillion dollar American entertainment conglomerates.

Not sure if you know this, but there are tens of thousands of people involved in making a movie or TV series. Many making minimum wage and many who own businesses that are employed by the studios like catering companies. Or transportation companies, or even all the companies who tech they use like the camera's they use to film said movies.

ALL of those people? Their employment DEPENDS on movie studio's and the work they do to keep them gainfully employed. When you pirate movies you're not taking money out of the faceless multi-trillion entertainment companies, you're taking money out of the people's pocket who are integral part of creating the movies and shows you watch and who's livelihood depends on their continued employment by those companies.

Take a studio like New Line who put out the Lord of the Rings movies and was wildly successful until a series of flops effectively closed the studio:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/featu...

From 'Nightmare on Elm Street' to 'Lord of the Rings', New Line Cinema created some of Hollywood's most influential blockbusters. But now its 40-year history is in tatters following a string of big-budget box-office flops.

[michaelbrave]

I usually imagine extradition being used for people who are dangerous, for someone who at worse encouraged a lot of copyright violations by making software feels like an abuse of power to me.

[austinjp]

What's going on here? A new account, attracting several comments about a controversial figure. I'm not convinced the parent comment is actually bringing much to the party, yet it's getting traffic.

How do online communities discuss controversial subjects while ensuring good-faith participation?

[codsane]

I’m not sure what this comment brings to the table either, I mean are you really saying their opinion is invalid because they’re new / haven’t “put enough time in”? That doesn’t seem very fair.

I don’t think newcomers should be excluded from conversations…what’s the requirement; 12, 24, 48 months? Who determines that? Account age isn’t the best indicator of good-faith participation (accounts can be hacked, bought, etc.).

Instead engage with the content itself and where it comes from to determine if it seems to be in “good-faith”. Ironically, writing off someone’s opinion based on a single (potentially unrelated) fact is probably “bad-faith”.

[lolinder]

HN has moderators that track things like that and can see where the upvotes are coming from and determine if the attention is genuine. If you're concerned, the correct approach is to email them about it, not post vague accusations of astroturfing.

From the guidelines:

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [e-mail] and we'll look at the data.