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

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#91

Post by gcb0 »

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.

not exactly. the studios and distributors sue everyone, even YouTube. then the one that becomes market leader and gets all the eyeballs usually gets a deal for the lawsuits and the studios have them on a leash for cheaper advertising (remember that a Disney film will spend more on advertising than production over the course of its international release life)

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#92

Post by laotzu »

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…

That's because the losses are theoretical, meaning they don't exist in reality. You can't lose what you don't already have.

There is a difference between copy/paste and stealing. When stealing, scarcity is implicitly assumed and one party physically loses something they had. With copy/paste nothing is physically lost from either party and there is no scarcity.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#93

Post by speeder »

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.

And people like you have some entitled thinking that you have the right to deny people like me (I am from a third world country that is mostly ignored by copyright owners) the right for culture and education.

I pirated thousands of stuff, and I am proud to say it, because pirating thousands of stuff is how I educated myself, and how I got cultured in things that don't exist in my country, and now allow me to do the amazing stuff that I do (including participate in the international economy, that has more money available than local economy, and earn enough money to sometimes be able to legally buy something, instead of pirating it).

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#94

Post by tptacek »

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...

They also don't have Google in New Zealand.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#95

Post by pera »

gcb0 wrote: post #82
adventured wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/D...

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#96

Post by kwhitefoot »

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.

The whole point of copyright is to make the works available. It is explicitly the reason why the creator is given a time limited monopoly.

From Wikipedia:

"... the Statute of Anne is formally titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Copies, during the Times therein mentioned".[45] The preamble for the Statute indicates the purpose of the legislation - to bring order to the book trade - saying:

    ..., and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted... "

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#97

Post by [deleted] »

gcb0 wrote: post #90
[deleted] wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#98

Post by afreak »

gcb0 wrote: post #85
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.

You're more likely to see a copyrighted episode of Dexter removed from YouTube if someone complained than to see it improved. You seem to be grasping at straws here.

Kimble Schmidt is getting what he deserves.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#99

Post by Retric »

pc86 wrote: post #87
tajen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If Jaywalking is a crime in country 200 countries you don't want someone to be liable 200 times for a single case.

Note, we are charging people for crimes committed in other countries so the president is independent of crime type.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#100

Post by awakeasleep »

speeder wrote: post #93
evgen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And people like you have some entitled thinking that you have the right to deny people like me (I am from a third world country that is mostly ignored by copyright owners) the right for culture and education. I pirated thousands of stuff, and I am proud to say it, because pirating thousands of stuff is how I educated myself, and how I got cultured in things that don't exist in my country, and now allow me to do the a…

Your situation highlights my philosophical disagreement with Intellectual Property.

I think, when you really analyze the basic motivations behind IP, they come down to 'It's the law of the jungle.' aka "Fuck you, pay me".

There are lots of humane laws that take the exigencies of life into account, but there are also laws that the powerful have created to exploit the less powerful. A legal framework that excludes the poor from sharing the ideas of the powerful or wealthy is not an 'enlightened' law, and therefore I believe anything that can be done to fight it or weaken it's enforcement mechanisms is a mitzvah.

Post reply on HN