Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

stuff.co.nz

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#21
What a farce.

The pro statist tptacek is top comment after the last thread gets buried. And then mods turn off comments for new accounts.

Congrats HN on controlling the conversation to be pro state power, way to be the mind police.

What fucked up place.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#22
He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there. Copyright infringement isn't extraditable from New Zealand, because it's not a crime there. To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which are extraditable offenses in New Zealand. However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement charge. The conspiracy charge is based upon conspiring with others to commit copyright infringement, and the money laundering charge is based upon his use of the proceeds of an alleged crime - namely, copyright infringement.

Based upon this, a higher court may very well reverse the lower court's decision. Kim Dotcom isn't going anywhere until he has exhausted all of his extradition appeals.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#23
My only rational objection to this is that I don't think we've figured out how to predict actual losses to piracy.

In other words, it is extremely naive (and quite unfair to infringers) to assume that EVERY pirated copy of something is a lost sale. The folks I've known who pirate are more like... data hoarders than payment evaders... Oftentimes they never even bothered consuming the media, it was all about collecting things first for them, and they would have never paid for said media to begin with, so it really becomes nebulous to start swinging around accusations of theft, because... what was "stolen"? Some unknown percentage of the copies surely ARE lost sales, but how can we determine that percentage? Would it vary based on attributes of the media?

In any event, I think the entire state of China would probably be the worst copyright offender, if they're looking for someone to go after...

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#24

He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there. Copyright infringement isn't extraditable from New Zealand, because it's not a crime there. To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which are extraditable offenses in New Zealand. However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement…

Even if copyright infringement is not extraditable in New Zealand, it is still a crime, right? So how would it in any way invalidate the extraditability of money laundering "based" on some crime, if money laundering in itself is extraditable even without any other crime having committed by the accused?

Money laundering would be extraditable even stand-alone, right?

Yes, of course appeals will always be used to delay extraditions and anything. This is not really to the credit of justice systems, though it may sometimes lead to outcomes that are "right".

(I just recently got decision for my friend's mother's residence permit where our local government tired out after a repeated appeal process of seven years, after two full rounds of all court stages plus the ECHR. We lost in the courts at all stages but the authorities just realised that this is never going to end so it's better to give in.)

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#25

My only rational objection to this is that I don't think we've figured out how to predict actual losses to piracy. In other words, it is extremely naive (and quite unfair to infringers) to assume that EVERY pirated copy of something is a lost sale. The folks I've known who pirate are more like... data hoarders than payment evaders... Oftentimes they never even bothered consuming the media , it was all about collectin…

And even in the case of the "payment evaders", I'm willing to be that a large percentage is made up of people who would opt to not consume rather than pay the full price. This is especially true in countries with less fortunate economic situations. Multiple downloads and situations where one would actually prefer a cracked, DRM-free copy are also probably counted as "lost sales". The list goes on, and I'm pretty sure the percentage of lost sales is a lot lower than what the industry would like to believe.

That's not to say that blatant piracy is a good thing either. I just don't think the industry has figured out a very good response to it. Rather, convenience features and price point could be adjusted to make piracy a less attractive option.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#26

He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there. Copyright infringement isn't extraditable from New Zealand, because it's not a crime there. To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which are extraditable offenses in New Zealand. However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement…

Even if copyright infringement is not extraditable in New Zealand, it is still a crime, right? So how would it in any way invalidate the extraditability of money laundering "based" on some crime, if money laundering in itself is extraditable even without any other crime having committed by the accused? Money laundering would be extraditable even stand-alone, right? Yes, of course appeals will always be used to delay…

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#28
post #2

Process arguments aside (and there may be process arguments that demolish the US case here, and I care about process too, especially if they involve getting evidence in bogus ways): The US has Kim Schmitz dead to rights in this case. There's a whole mythology about what MegaUpload actually was, and it gets partial anecdotal support from people who, for instance, used it or had friends who used it solely as a sort of…

This is about the extradition. I'm sure there's something in your comment history that would be considered blasphemy in Turkey, should the US extradite you if we further assume you have never visited the country? Dotcom has never been to the US. I personally don't want a world where I may be extradited to a country I've never been because of something accessible on the internet and the political stars happened to ali…

I think you have confused the grounds for extradition. It can generally happen when the act is a crime both where extradited from and where extradited to.

Blasphemy is not criminal in the US, so let's not worry about that until you travel to Turkey or EU countries where "hate laws" apply.

Money laundering, fraud etc. on the other hand are illegal both in New Zealand and the US, so extradition grounds are there.

The fact that Kim Schmitz has never been to US does not mean that what he's done wouldn't be relevant to US and US laws wouldn't apply.

As an example, had Hideki Tojo ever set foot in the US? Not that I know - he might have, but it's not relevant. His actions were clearly seen on the US soil, and Americans did execute him by hanging.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#29
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if copyright infringement is not extraditable in New Zealand, it is still a crime, right? So how would it in any way invalidate the extraditability of money laundering "based" on some crime, if money laundering in itself is extraditable even without any other crime having committed by the accused? Money laundering would be extraditable even stand-alone, right? Yes, of course appeals will always be used to delay…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#30
post #16
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Independently of whether he's a savoury character or not (and I'm pretty firmly in the not camp), what's your opinion of him being extradited to the US despite: not being a US citizen, never having visited the US, not having had the offending servers or the company in question in the US and generally the whole case seeming to have nothing at all to do with the US at all? Except that Hollywood is based there, of cours…

not having had the offending servers...in the US Not accurate. Read the indictment at the link on this page. - Bottom of page 11: thirty-nine infringing copies of copyright motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting... in the Eastern District of Virginia - Page 18: The Mega Conspiracy leases approximately 25 petabytes of data storage from Carpathia to store content associated with The M…

We also need to prevent double trials. If an individual were judged and sentenced for a crime in one country, he should not be judged on the same grounds in another.
Post reply on HN