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

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#71

Post by Oletros »

scrollaway wrote: post #53
Sven7 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just like YouTube.

Yeah, people do tend to forget that most media consumption startups essentially got bootstrapped with a huge amount of copyright infringement. YouTube, Spotify, ... The difference is of course that those startups end up making their content legal. But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.

> But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.

What Spotify did?

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#72

Post by revelation »

ptaipale wrote: post #28
revelation wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

It's illegal in both, but most importantly, the crime happened in both. So why should US laws take precedence?

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#73

Post by flyryan »

djsumdog wrote: post #59
GauntletWizard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you care to point out some US companies that have hosted servers and hired employees in Saudi Arabia where those servers and employees were flaunting Saudi law? Further, New Zealand made their own choice to extradite him. They could have refused, they instead chose to. The alternative might have been an international incident, but they decided to aid the US and turn him over. The US is not so all-powerful that…

> The US is not so all-powerful that it can compel governments to act against their own best interest, only powerful enough to align interests, by hook or crook. What world do you live in? The United States often compels governments to act against their own interests. The 1973 US backed coup leading to the death of 11,000 civilians. The Iranian-Contras. The School of the Americas, which literally trained terrorists i…

I wish I could base my arguments on things that are going to happen 30 years from now.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#74

Post by bbarn »

ptaipale wrote: post #28
revelation wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Comparing a war general to a con artist? Not only that, Tojo was tried before an international panel, not just the US, and largely used as a figurehead to take blame and avoid execution of the royal family. BIG difference between world war and stealing movies.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#75

Post by evgen »

norswap wrote: post #55
nikcub wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's one way too look at it. The other way is that he made content available when the producers wouldn't. How long do you have to wait to get TV shows in the EU while the US merrily fills the internet with spoiler? His motivation weren't noble; but as far as thieves go, I'll take Kim Dotcom over the MPAA or the RIAA.

Do you want to know how long you should have to wait to get US TV shows in the EU? AS LONG AS THE COPYRIGHT OWNER THINKS YOU SHOULD WAIT. This sort of entitled "I want any content that interests me and I want it for free" attitude is exactly what plays into the hands of those who want to limit copyright reform.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#76

Post by golergka »

norswap wrote: post #55
nikcub wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's one way too look at it. The other way is that he made content available when the producers wouldn't. How long do you have to wait to get TV shows in the EU while the US merrily fills the internet with spoiler? His motivation weren't noble; but as far as thieves go, I'll take Kim Dotcom over the MPAA or the RIAA.

> he made content available when the producers wouldn't

Yeah, that's called theft. The "producers" are the guys (or organizations) that paid their money to have these TV shows shot, you know. If they wanted to, they could sell only one copy of their shows at all, like Wu Tang. Or just show us the trailers, make everyone want them, and never release them, just for the laughs.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#77

Post by msandford »

evgen wrote: post #75
norswap wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one way too look at it. The other way is that he made content available when the producers wouldn't. How long do you have to wait to get TV shows in the EU while the US merrily fills the internet with spoiler? His motivation weren't noble; but as far as thieves go, I'll take Kim Dotcom over the MPAA or the RIAA.

Do you want to know how long you should have to wait to get US TV shows in the EU? AS LONG AS THE COPYRIGHT OWNER THINKS YOU SHOULD WAIT. This sort of entitled "I want any content that interests me and I want it for free" attitude is exactly what plays into the hands of those who want to limit copyright reform.

> AS LONG AS THE COPYRIGHT OWNER THINKS YOU SHOULD WAIT

The point of copyright was to ensure that people who made creative works could get paid and earn a living. Not to tie their cultural works up for the rest of their lives, everyone else be damned.

Given that the idea of a "tragedy" has been around for a few thousand years now (the greeks wrote about it a long time ago) how is any creative work created completely in a vacuum? I believe that the answer is that it is not. Many stories have different details but there are probably only a few dozen archetypical stories.

We have the idea of compulsory licensing for a bunch of different things. Why shouldn't movies and TV shows and such also be licensed that way?

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#78

Post by coldpie »

golergka wrote: post #76
norswap wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one way too look at it. The other way is that he made content available when the producers wouldn't. How long do you have to wait to get TV shows in the EU while the US merrily fills the internet with spoiler? His motivation weren't noble; but as far as thieves go, I'll take Kim Dotcom over the MPAA or the RIAA.

> he made content available when the producers wouldn't Yeah, that's called theft. The "producers" are the guys (or organizations) that paid their money to have these TV shows shot, you know. If they wanted to, they could sell only one copy of their shows at all, like Wu Tang. Or just show us the trailers, make everyone want them, and never release them, just for the laughs.

No it isn't. It's called copyright infringement.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#79

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

jsmith0295 wrote: post #58
such_a_casual wrote: post #17

I just want to say that many, many moons ago when I was still just a lad, I released my first ever computer program to the public. Very soon after someone uploaded a copy to megaupload without my permission. I submitted a copyright complaint to megaupload and it was swiftly removed. I will always remember that. Thank you Kim. Once a month in my country someone shoots up a school and now we've had a terrorist attack.…

Crime which costs U.S. companies directly leads to a variety of issues. But basically, it means America has less wealth, and the government has less tax revenue. It makes plenty of sense for them to enforce copyright laws. It's a net positive for the economy not to allow people to profit off of IP theft.

How many people are doing jail time for the AIG or Lehman scandals?

How much did those scandals affect the economy, compared to the effect of MU?

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#80

Post by Sven7 »

nikcub wrote: post #65
Sven7 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just like YouTube.

I actually have an unpublished draft post on my blog titled "Is Megaupload as guilty as YouTube?". The idea of the post was to compare and contrast the internal YouTube emails[1] that came out as part of Viacom vs YouTube with the internal Megaupload emails[2] [2.5]. The reason why the post remained unpublished is because after reading the relevant indictments and court rulings I found that there were clear distincti…

...and there is more pornography, pirated audio and video content on YouTube than there has ever been at any time before.

You can add that to your post to complete it.

Post reply on HN