Does New Zealand have an Ecuadorian Embassy?
Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
101–110 of 143 posts
Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is a poor example since a single case of Jaywalking can only be commited in a single country. If you were to Jaywalk across a country border on the other hand, you'd could be charged with 2 instances of Jaywalking. Once in the first country covering only the distance you Jaywalked while in that country and once in the second country to cover the distance you Jaywalked in that country. Even in that case you might only be tried in a single country since the other country would have to extradite you and they may not want to. That's the whole point of the extradition process, it allows one country to deny or allow another country the ability to prosecute someone.
Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#103Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify during their early years. This is pretty well known.
Citation needed. Are you sure you're not thinking of Grooveshark?
Sorry, I can't find an actual citation - if you ask any Spotify employee though, it's pretty much an open secret that Spotify's initial collection was scraped from the pirate bay.
Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I won't repeat what blktiger said. A better example would be child pornography hosted on multiple servers in multiple countries. I'm sure there is a less emotionally charged offense where you could come up with a single act violating the same (or very similar) laws in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The issue is that politicians also need to appease their donors, which is why they just generally protect the elites. But that doesn't make what Dotcom did any less criminal.
In my opinion, they're two entirely separate issues. And getting both right would probably require something like a President Sanders with a Democratic congress willing to pass significant campaign finance reform.
Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is a poor example since a single case of Jaywalking can only be commited in a single country. If you were to Jaywalk across a country border on the other hand, you'd could be charged with 2 instances of Jaywalking. Once in the first country covering only the distance you Jaywalked while in that country and once in the second country to cover the distance you Jaywalked in that country. Even in that case you might…
Ahh, but we are charging people for crimes they commit outside of a given country.
If twenty country's all make blasphemy illegal, then a single speech in a single country would be breaking the law in each of them.
As to jaywalking, that might not be the root cause. Selective enforcement means people often get charge for reasons other than the direct action.
Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#108Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I won't repeat what blktiger said. A better example would be child pornography hosted on multiple servers in multiple countries. I'm sure there is a less emotionally charged offense where you could come up with a single act violating the same (or very similar) laws in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
In your example each separate server would involve separate incidents and thus be separate crimes. What about one person uploading one file to one server in a persons home country?
Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
#110Earlier 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.
What a perverse view of the world our twisted regulations have created. Patents and copyrights were created explicitly to encourage distribution by providing limited financial incentives (monopoly), not prevent it.