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

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> Yeah, that's called theft.

Only by loose metaphor; its actually properly called "copyright infringement", which is more analogous to trespass to chattels than to theft, or even conversion (though it obviously differs from either in that copyrights are intangible personal property, and the others deal with tangible personal property.)

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#122

Post by ewindisch »

scrollaway wrote: post #104
lmm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is public knowledge is that CEO Daniel Ek was the former CEO of uTorrent. He has certainly made millions from online copyright infringement, if only perhaps, less directly than Kim-dot-com.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#123

Post by ptaipale »

revelation wrote: post #72
ptaipale wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because a vast majority of copyright holders whose rights were infringed are based in US?

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#124

Post by ptaipale »

bbarn wrote: post #74
ptaipale wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, Tojo was just one example; Japan very clearly wasn't part of the international panel that condemned him.

Perhaps Kim Schmitz is also a sort of figurehead here.

I have not doubt that the amount of losses that copyright holders claim were lost due to his actions are vastly exaggerated. On the other hand I have no doubt that Schmitz has been making considerable profit out of a copyright infringement racket.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#125

Post by api »

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'm not sure why everyone makes such a hero of Dotcom. He's a jerk who got rich by monetizing other people's work without compensation and in direct violation of their terms and wishes. I'm sure the same people lauding him would be angry if I, say, pulled their open source work and stripped off their copyright and name and claimed that I wrote it and used it to make money. Same thing.

If you want to praise heroes of the open Internet or encryption, there are tons of far more deserving people who create original work rather than profiteering off the work of others.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#126

Post by DanBC »

api wrote: post #125
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'm not sure why everyone makes such a hero of Dotcom. He's a jerk who got rich by monetizing other people's work without compensation and in direct violation of their terms and wishes. I'm sure the same people lauding him would be angry if I, say, pulled their open source work and stripped off their copyright and name and claimed that I wrote it and used it to make money. Same thing. If you want to praise heroes of…

There are a few people who say that, but I get the impression that most people just want to see some due process, and don't like the undue attention he gets.

Quite a lot of money has been spent taking down pirate bay and Mega and dotcom and etc.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#127

Post by newman314 »

takeda wrote: post #114
downandout wrote: post #22

He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there. Copyright infringement isn't extraditable from New Zealand, because it's not a crime there. To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which are extraditable offenses in New Zealand. However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement…

I'm still puzzled how he can be extradited if he is not US citizen and did not commit any crime on US soil.

One word: overreach

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#128

Post by snori74 »

zaphar wrote: post #112
gcb0 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coi…

To be fair the landscape of NZ was highly suitable to the filming of a Movie like the Hobbit. There were far better reasons for them to be filming there than the Dotcom case. Enough better reasons that it's reasonable to conclude the timing in the case was coincidental. I suspect that it's also not unusual for Hollywood to sweeten the pot when they want to film somewhere with donations of various types. The connectio…

It is a bit unusual for Hollywood to get laws passed in their favour in foreign countries - http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/oct/31/warner-bros-...

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#129

Post by effie »

golergka wrote: post #120
norswap wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly the legal doctrine. Personally, I don't happen to agree with it.

How? I honestly don't understand how a person in the same ethical framework could disagree with this, if he fully understands the situation.

Ethic and morality judgement is very subjective endeavour with inconsistent results across the population. In other words, most people do not exist in "the same ethical framework". The justice framework used by judges is perhaps more consistent, but not necessarily better than other competitive view for any case in hand. Sometimes the very laws are very immoral.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#130

Post by rpgmaker »

takeda wrote: post #114
downandout wrote: post #22

He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there. Copyright infringement isn't extraditable from New Zealand, because it's not a crime there. To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which are extraditable offenses in New Zealand. However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement…

I'm still puzzled how he can be extradited if he is not US citizen and did not commit any crime on US soil.

Imperialism. What the US says goes.
Post reply on HN