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

Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

stuff.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#31

Post by michaelmrose »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #20
refurb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, if I am running a scam on US users, using US services to do so, and hiring US employees to run the scam, then I am operating in the US, even if I never set foot there. You can argue any kind of racketeering is immune to foreign prosecution if you argue against Dotcom's extradition, and those arguments are no more valid.

You shouldn't be subject to US law as a non us citizen regardless or would you like US citizens hauled off to saudi arabia to answer decency charges?

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#32

Post by Zancarius »

ianamartin wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: 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…

In a perfect U.S. -- one where jurors weren't routinely disqualified from serving on a jury simply because they are aware of the concept of jury nullification -- I might agree with you. But our system is badly broken here in the U.S. Appeals to the law as it currently exists and saying essentially, "You broke the law; now pay the price." are ignorant and stupid since our whole concept of justice is predicated on the…

> one where jurors weren't routinely disqualified from serving on a jury simply because they are aware of the concept of jury nullification

Off-topic but tangentially related.

I served on jury duty for the local court system and had an opportunity to speak with one of the prosecuting attorneys after my term was over. I couldn't help myself from asking him how he felt, as a prosecutor, about jury nullification, and would have been surprised by his response had I not already been aware of his political leanings. It was his personal opinion that jury nullification was under-utilized and that it shouldn't serve as a reason to disqualify jurors. Indeed, he wished jurors were generally more well-informed and at least aware of the possibility and utility of its use, especially given its history in colonial courts. (It's a shame that some localities may have laws that could be used to punish such jurors.)

That much gives me hope, but considering how few attorneys and judges likely share his sentiments, I'm not sure if that hope is misplaced (maybe it is). Plus, it's anecdotal with a sample size of one. ;)

I admit I don't really have a point other than to share my experience, and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your assertions, but I found it interesting that there are at least some people in the bowels of the judicial system who have similar concerns. I'm just not sure they're numerous enough (or ever will be numerous enough) to effect change.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#33

Post by VanillaLime »

michaelmrose wrote: post #31
GauntletWizard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if I am running a scam on US users, using US services to do so, and hiring US employees to run the scam, then I am operating in the US, even if I never set foot there. You can argue any kind of racketeering is immune to foreign prosecution if you argue against Dotcom's extradition, and those arguments are no more valid.

You shouldn't be subject to US law as a non us citizen regardless or would you like US citizens hauled off to saudi arabia to answer decency charges?

Indecency isn't a crime in the US, so you couldn't get extradited for it.

If you had committed a crime in Saudi Arabia that is also illegal in the US and the US courts have ruled that the extradition is legal, I don't see what's wrong with being extradited.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#34

Post by jacquesm »

michaelmrose wrote: post #31
GauntletWizard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if I am running a scam on US users, using US services to do so, and hiring US employees to run the scam, then I am operating in the US, even if I never set foot there. You can argue any kind of racketeering is immune to foreign prosecution if you argue against Dotcom's extradition, and those arguments are no more valid.

You shouldn't be subject to US law as a non us citizen regardless or would you like US citizens hauled off to saudi arabia to answer decency charges?

Or US 'contractors' to Iraq.

The US has many citizens that rightly should stand trial for crimes a whole lot more serious than facilitating copyright violation, and none ever will. Reciprocity in situations like these would be very much appreciated and the US is very very reluctant to let any of its citizens be extradited. It happens, but the frequency is dis-proportional to the point of being comical.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#35

Post by adventured »

[deleted] wrote: post #26
ptaipale wrote: post #24

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]

> Actually, it's not. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand.

"In some circumstances, a person may commit a criminal offence if they make, import, sell, hire or distribute infringing copies of works. Criminal liability can attract fines of up to $150,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years."

http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewFaq.php?faq=360

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#36

Post by mahranch »

[deleted] wrote: post #26
ptaipale wrote: post #24

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]

> Actually, it's not. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand.

How does that work? New Zealand is a signatory to the Berne Convention and also to WIPO. That means they agree to hold similar copyright laws and protections.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#37

Post by seer »

lectrick wrote: post #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 collectin…

At least for games, there might actually be a way to approximate this - PS3 could not be cracked to run pirates games for quite a while. And had a comparable rival console - comparing sales/piracy amount could give us a clue about the numbers, though it would be limited to this particular media type. Anecdotally the friends who had PS3s tended to actually buy those games, ending up 2-4, while the ones with chipped/cracked consoles had an order of magnitude more...

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#38

Post by [deleted] »

adventured wrote: post #35
[deleted] wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> Actually, it's not. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. "In some circumstances, a person may commit a criminal offence if they make, import, sell, hire or distribute infringing copies of works. Criminal liability can attract fines of up to $150,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years." http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewFaq.php?faq=360

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#39

Post by dsfyu404ed »

VanillaLime wrote: post #33
michaelmrose wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be subject to US law as a non us citizen regardless or would you like US citizens hauled off to saudi arabia to answer decency charges?

Indecency isn't a crime in the US, so you couldn't get extradited for it. If you had committed a crime in Saudi Arabia that is also illegal in the US and the US courts have ruled that the extradition is legal, I don't see what's wrong with being extradited.

Copyright infringement isn't a crime in NZ...

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#40

Post by chrisbennet »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #39
VanillaLime wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indecency isn't a crime in the US, so you couldn't get extradited for it. If you had committed a crime in Saudi Arabia that is also illegal in the US and the US courts have ruled that the extradition is legal, I don't see what's wrong with being extradited.

Copyright infringement isn't a crime in NZ...

Except that it is (someone posted a link to the law above).
Post reply on HN