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

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#81

Post by deftnerd »

DanBC wrote: post #52
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is if you do it as part of a business. Downloading a movie isn't a crime (but is illegal), but burning it to dvd and selling it turns it into a crime.

OK, let's shift to another scenario then.

It's illegal in the US to make and distribute adult films without the proper permits and paperwork and health checks.

Let's say someone made a website that had Saudi girls, now living in the US, make adult films (without the proper permitting and everything so they were violating a US law as well) and advertised those films in Saudi Arabia. And let's say there are Saudi customers.

To speed things up, maybe they had a CDN server in Saudi Arabia.

When the authorities in Saudi Arabia discover this and charge the film makers, would the US grant extradition?

* The film makers / business operators in this scenario would be 100% American. * The product of their creation and the service itself wouldn't be illegal in the US. What was illegal was some business decisions they made. * Their CDN helped facilitate optimal data transmission but was not required for business operations * The Saudi court in this scenario wishes to charge them for the service itself and the product created

Similarly, * Kim is not an american citizen and his company wasn't American * His business was legal in the country it was incorporated in, although he arguably made some business decisions that were not entirely above board * He had leased equipment in the US to help serve people in that geographic region * The US wishes to jail him for the actual operation of the service

Would the US extradite the US citizen to Saudi Arabia for punishment? If not, why should NZ extradite Kim to the US?

*edit - Somehow didn't see that michaelmrose made this argument too in this exact same thread

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#82

Post by gcb0 »

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

that's a unofficial site. and weaselly worded. "in some circumstances" which may be falsifying documents to get hold of the material, using the material to defame someone, or something else, we don't know because they happily omit. and then next phrase is already about criminal liability, which may or may not be because of copyright infringement.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#83

Post by aplorbust »

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…

There may be some irony in your choice of example.

Showtime allowed Dexter to be rebroadcast in NZ on a delayed schedule (sometimes close to a year) on free, broadcast TV.

That means any viewer with a little patience could watch Dexter without paying anything. Also, sometimes these American programs are shown on an accelerated schedule. Viewers can watch a new episode every night instead of having to wait for a week.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#85

Post by gcb0 »

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…

i can imagine the same being found at YouTube emails.

the Google purchase discussion included talks about the liability because of pirated material. and i bet if some user complained about play back issues about any video they would fix it too.

it's just a matter of how the lawyer taking to press wants you to feel. and we usually fall very easily.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#86

Post by [deleted] »

forinti wrote: post #70
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…

IANAL, but, as far as I know, there is no concept of stand-alone money laundering. You can only launder money that you came upon through crime. So, if there was no crime to begin with, it makes no sense to accuse him of money-laundering.

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#87

Post by pc86 »

tajen wrote: post #30
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…

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.

Is there any concept of international double jeopardy? I understand why we want to avoid this within the same country, but if someone commits a crime against both Country A and Country B simultaneously (one act) and they are sentenced to N months in prison or a $Y fine in Country A, I don't immediately see any reason why Country B shouldn't be allowed to pursue a case against them as well.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#88

Post by gcb0 »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #57
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?

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…

my employer has a data center there and neighboring countries, and i can guess we don't pay much attention if out edge servers are hosting any entertainment news pictures that are death offenses there.

same with China. i bet right now our edge servers are pumping out lots of state censored topics that are also possible treason death sentences.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#89

Post by gcb0 »

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…

for NZ, the USA based companies signed a deal to film several multi million dollars movies there on the same week the NZ feds agreed to press charges and arrest Kim Dotcom. including the hobbit, which also donated a renovated international airport to the country (hobbit themed no less)

if you want to think the US industry most interested in the copyright law there moving all that money at the right time is just a coincidence, suit yourself.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#90

Post by gcb0 »

[deleted] wrote: post #86
forinti wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but, as far as I know, there is no concept of stand-alone money laundering. You can only launder money that you came upon through crime. So, if there was no crime to begin with, it makes no sense to accuse him of money-laundering.

[deleted]

are you even reading the comments? he declared money as "proceed from my company: data storage site"

and the US claims that money laundering because it was proceeds from buying and selling illegal materials.

Post reply on HN