Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#91

Post by murricaFsckYeah »

specialp wrote: post #38
forrestthewoods wrote: post #2

This probably goes against popular HN opinion, but good. I'm glad. He's a scumbag who profited TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS off content that he knew to be copyright infringing. He deserves prison time.

I think people here do not really remember or weren't around when Kim Dotcom was not internet hero of piracy, but he was "Kimble" with a website showing him in jets and with women. He has basically lived his whole life with schemes of dubious legality all to profit himself. He stole credit card information, and ran pump and dump schemes. I don't really like how the arm of US law is so long, but I also do not like Kim…

Google (youtube) profits from "piracy", and yet they still are there.

In fact, you could "pirate" anything and use cloud services to store illegal content. But no one is blaming the companies that provide "cloud" services for this piracy...

All of this is what people call "hypocrisy".

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#92

Post by saurik »

the_hangman wrote: post #55
toomuchtodo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

(That was assuredly a rhetorical question, and while this article shows that one person did, it almost demonstrates the point more than refutes it...)

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#93

Post by murricaFsckYeah »

revelation wrote: post #57

The 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…

I doubt this has is particularly related to "Internet"...

It has a lot to do with american imperialism, the kind of imperialism that they will always deny. You see, even before Internet, the US extradited some people based on bullshit arguments, while conveniently ignoring the very same crimes committed by their own friends. It's rather obvious that they are showing off their power.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#94

Post by leereeves »

tim333 wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but criminal copyright infringement has much worse penalties than that in the U.S.

Technically he's being extradited for copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering. I doubt they could have extradited him for copyright alone. Whether he is actually guilty of the last two is debatable.

The US-New Zealand extradition treaty (1970) doesn't include copyright infringement, racketeering or money laundering as extraditable offenses.

The only extraditable offense that seems remotely close is:

> Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#95

Post by aplorbust »

tptacek wrote: post #33
Mandatum wrote: post #17

The 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.

Did you read the Sentencing Act? I think parent post is closer to reality.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#96

Post by throwawaykf05 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #45
ikeboy wrote: post #34

Earlier 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.

So your argument is, a bunch of guys got away because of a shortcomings in the law, so we should let this guy get away too?

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#97

Post by toomuchtodo »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #96
toomuchtodo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your argument is, a bunch of guys got away because of a shortcomings in the law, so we should let this guy get away too?

A bunch of guys in the US brought the economy to its knees, and walked away (do you need to extridate from New York City? Or can't you just drive down the street? I'll even hail the Uber for you).

A guy in New Zealand who infringed copyright, and whom the US has zero jurisdiction over, has had more legal work put into his case.

That's my argument. Complicated? I don't think so.

I'm not fond of the gentleman, but the US justice department is clearly overreaching and should be punished accordingly.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#100

Post by reddytowns »

ubhibbd wrote: post #79

Who else has the guts to speak the truth? This is an abortion of justice, a naked use of force by a corrupt government looking to destroy someones life on behalf of powerful corporations.

Anybody and everybody on the internet has learned to whine, err "speak the truth", about nearly everything. That doesn't mean they accomplish much.
Post reply on HN