The real question: is Dotcom innocent of his alleged crimes? The real story is that if Dotcom was facilitating piracy. The technicality of if he was wire tapped illegally or not is important in theory, but it comes down to this: Dotcom would not be in trouble if he hadn't broken the law. If he was innocent, then this would be a big story. This is similar to someone caught in video robbing a store but beating the charge because of a technicality.
Criminals winning cases on technicalities while still having committed the crime is not justice. Justice is getting punished for crimes actually committed. Justice is when innocent people are acquitted of crimes they did not commit.
Turning Dotcom into somekind of folk hero is ridiculous. He became very wealthy by facilitating theft. It isn't like he was donating the proceeds to build schools for girls in Afghanistan. If he broke a potentially unfair law as a statement and did it for something other than getting rich, maybe then we could consider him something other than what he is -- a self-serving criminal.
Criminals winning cases on technicalities while still having committed the crime is not justice. Justice is getting punished for crimes actually committed. Justice is when innocent people are acquitted of crimes they did not commit.
Turning Dotcom into somekind of folk hero is ridiculous. He became very wealthy by facilitating theft. It isn't like he was donating the proceeds to build schools for girls in Afghanistan. If he broke a potentially unfair law as a statement and did it for something other than getting rich, maybe then we could consider him something other than what he is -- a self-serving criminal.