[deleted]
New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
51–60 of 115 posts
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#52Lol, the evil empire strikes again. These corrupt people who control the government understand nothing but power and violence.
Lol, reflexive down votes from those who defend state power and corruption, way to go HN.
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are completely independent. But that doesn't stop our political leaders from bending over to make a good impression with the United States. I wouldn't be surprised if the United States threatened trade agreements to have things bent in its favour.
Why did it take 4 years, then?
Negotiations and bribes sometimes take awhile? Especially when you are trying to not make it look like those things.
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
He made $100 million via (alleged) illegal copyright infringement. If that isn't worth it, how much would be?
Devil's Advocate: Has anyone been prosecuted for the 2008 economic collapse? And you don't even have to extradite someone from NYC. But a few hundred million from a guy in New Zealand? Nail him to the cross so the MPAA gets what they want.
There is no legitimate rule of law, only a tool of violenence to destroy those who oppose the state. You see the same narrative play out over and over again, strange how so view refuse to see the truth.
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
He made $100 million via (alleged) illegal copyright infringement. If that isn't worth it, how much would be?
Devil's Advocate: Has anyone been prosecuted for the 2008 economic collapse? And you don't even have to extradite someone from NYC. But a few hundred million from a guy in New Zealand? Nail him to the cross so the MPAA gets what they want.
A simple Googling will help you answer this query:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-bank...
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#56The New Zealand government spent $5.8M NZD prosecuting a man for a law that holds a maximum fine of $150,000 in the country he's being prosecuted in. Bollocks.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but criminal copyright infringement has much worse penalties than that in the U.S.
If U.S. citizen who does not reside in New Zealand who is not a New Zealand citizen broke an New Zealand law while living in the U.S. operating a U.K. operation, I don't think he will be extradited to New Zealand.
If I wanted to be subject to U.S.'s laws I'd go to the U.S.
The content owners should be forced to file lawsuits in Hong Kong or New Zealand.
Otherwise it'd be as if New Zealand and Hong Kong are mere U.S. satellite states, like East Germany to the Soviet Union.
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#57The precedent here being that you may be extradited to a country you have never even visited on the basis of something on the internet.
If your country is friendly with Uganda, try not discussing your nontraditional sexual orientation online.
There's a bigger picture here. We desperately need to rethink what laws and in particular which jurisdiction applies. The previous approach ("all of them, all of the time") has produced any number of nonsensical results and tremendous damage in the form of forum shopping.
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your views on how it relates to the sovereignty of a nation?
New Zealand is a sovereign nation. One that has laws which established residency for Kim Dotcom. And one that has signed international treaties with other sovereign nations. New Zealand has used their own judicial system to reach this decision. They are behaving in accordance to their own laws and agreements they were willing participants to. In short, there's nothing wrong here. Not in the slightest.
What he did should not be legal here. But he may have been clever enough to be at least in the grey area of the law. At least the law in NZ. From a strictly moral standpoint, he was ripping off the copyright holders no doubt and should not have been able to get away with it.
The problem is he is getting extradited on these parts of the treaty:
Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities, or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.
…
Obtaining property, money, or valuable securities by false pretenses or by conspiracy to defraud the public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether such deceit or falsehood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense.
I'm not sure you can argue that he did that, and if that is the case, you have to ask what is going on here?
Of course, there is much to this that I don't know, but still it's a bit fishy.
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#59This reminds me of a fantastic picture of Kim Dotcom: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/kim-dotcom-is-tot... It is over-the-top and ridiculous--just like Kim Dotcom.
This is actually a still from this also-fantastic video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf3bjKwwlMM
TL;DW: A lap of the infamous Nurburgring Nordschleife in Kim Dotcom's fleet of three Mercedes Benz CLK DTMs. The drivers are Kim Dotcom, his CMO from Megaupload, and Formula 1 World Champion Kimi Raikkonen.
From the video description: "The production involved 30 cameras, 100+ crew, 2 helicopters, 2 camera cars and one fixed wing aircraft."
Edit: The pic you linked is probably not a still from the video, technically speaking, but a promo shot done on site the same day.
Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US
#60Lol, the evil empire strikes again. These corrupt people who control the government understand nothing but power and violence.
Lol, reflexive down votes from those who defend state power and corruption, way to go HN.
I think it's more the way you went about it. You kind of just threw out an opinion but didn't really add to the conversation.