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

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#41

Post by Atropos »

adrusi wrote: post #5
loceng wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps playing Devil's Advocate here a little bit and without knowing their local laws - however wouldn't the route still be, and all that is obligated by MegaUpload, to respond to official DMCA-like requests? I don't want to assume that he knows what Dexter is, nor that it wasn't the copyright holder who uploaded it.

He's being extradited now, which means that it's US laws that apply now. I don't think this particular fact is evidence of any law breaking, unless the email the user sent said they were pirating the show. Because it's hard to prove that Kim knew what "Dexter" was, and even if he did, it's hard to prove he didn't assume it was uploaded legitimately (by Showtime, for example). That said, there's a little more to it th…

"Proving" something in a court of law (in criminal law) only requires that there is no reasonable doubt. Providing alternative explanations that are not logically impossible, but exceedingly unlikely, does not help you much. If the Dexter thing occured as written here, proving intentional copyright infringement is very easy.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#42

Post by nikcub »

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…

It really grinds me that he is portrayed by some as an unjust victim of US gov malice and a champion for internet rights issues when he is nothing more than a thief, liar and conman.

It doesn't help that people like Snowden, Greenwald and Assange associated themselves with his cause when they appeared at his election event in Auckland where he promised a bombshell against the government but produced what were likely forged documents.

I'm all for copyright reform, online privacy rights, reform of US judicial overreach, etc. but Kim Dotcom earned $175M by commercializing misappropriated content. There was no cause here as could be argued with the pirate bay or other similar cases. There was also nothing innovative or interesting about what he did. This guy was in it for himself and knew what he was getting himself into and what the consequences could be.

That he cast himself as an internet jesus was to be expected by those who knew him, but that so many bought it up is very unfortunate and damaging to legitimate causes.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#43

Post by rtpg »

jacquesm wrote: post #34
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?

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.

Are there any stats about this? Military contractors have a bit of a special situation ( not to say its valid...), but if I'm wanted for murder in France I'm pretty sure I'll be put on the first plane out if I were in Virginia

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#45

Post by Hermel »

mahranch wrote: post #36
[deleted] wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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

Afaik, wipo and the berne convention do not require copyright infringent to be a crime. It can also be dealt with in civil law (as opposed to criminal law). As an example, breaching a contract is not a crime either in most cases.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#46

Post by Sven7 »

nikcub wrote: post #42
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…

It really grinds me that he is portrayed by some as an unjust victim of US gov malice and a champion for internet rights issues when he is nothing more than a thief, liar and conman. It doesn't help that people like Snowden, Greenwald and Assange associated themselves with his cause when they appeared at his election event in Auckland where he promised a bombshell against the government but produced what were likely…

So just like YouTube.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#47

Post by DanBC »

rtpg wrote: post #43
jacquesm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are there any stats about this? Military contractors have a bit of a special situation ( not to say its valid...), but if I'm wanted for murder in France I'm pretty sure I'll be put on the first plane out if I were in Virginia

One area of unbalance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16041824

> A critical test set out in the treaty is that the British request must include "such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested."

> This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#48

Post by madaxe_again »

rtpg wrote: post #43
jacquesm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are there any stats about this? Military contractors have a bit of a special situation ( not to say its valid...), but if I'm wanted for murder in France I'm pretty sure I'll be put on the first plane out if I were in Virginia

Amanda Knox. You made her a celebrity. Us tried hard to prevent her being tried.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#49

Post by [deleted] »

rtpg wrote: post #43
jacquesm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are there any stats about this? Military contractors have a bit of a special situation ( not to say its valid...), but if I'm wanted for murder in France I'm pretty sure I'll be put on the first plane out if I were in Virginia

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#50

Post by madaxe_again »

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.

Is murder a crime in the US? Or only if you're black? I ask as there are numerous cases of accused murder where the US has refused extradition.
Post reply on HN