Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

stuff.co.nz

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#131
post #42
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…

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…

A copyright infringer, liar, and conman. In New Zealand.

When I silently wish for the extradition effort to fail, I'm not backing him. I really just want to see a sovereign allied anglophone nation tell the US to see that its jurisdictional claims stop at the 12 NM limit, and to please mind its own business. I don't want to see US playing at world police, except for crimes heinous enough that every nation should be combating them wherever they may occur, like war crimes, terrorism, international financial fraud, and hijackings of international shipping vessels.

Why should Dotcom get so much effort? What risk does he pose to US citizens to justify transporting him out of NZ? Whatever that may be, the risk of allowing the US to assert intellectual property jurisdiction over the whole Internet is far worse.

I'd like Dotcom to eventually get comeuppance, but not in a way that establishes an undesirable precedent.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#132
post #114

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.

It happens often. See "Mr. Nice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Nice_(book) - he was a pot smuggler who had never entered the states and was not a UK citizen but the DEA managed to extradite him anyway.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#133
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…

>But when the DOJ imaged the servers, they got Schmitz's mail spools, and they have Schmitz and his employees in black- and- white discussing payment systems that disbursed cash to users specifically based on pirated media.

This is very similar to the emails from YouTube's early days where some of the first employees are openly discussing how to get more pirated material.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#134

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…

> Kim Dotcom isn't going anywhere until he has exhausted all of his extradition appeals

A NZ newspaper just published an article about the likely process at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...

1. Appeal to the NZ High Court on whether the law was applied correctly

2. Appeal to NZ Court of Appeals

3. Appeal to NZ Supreme Court

4. NZ Justice Minister decides whether there's any reasons in the Extradition Act that meant extradition should not be ordered, including humanitarian and political persecution reasons.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#135
post #114

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.

Hew Raymond Griffiths, had never been to the US. He was extradited from Australia to the US for something that isn't considered a crime in Australia.

The irony is this part: "Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008, after 5 weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he had never visited before being extradited to it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't know uTorrent was a company! I haven't used Windows in forever, so I've been using Transmission for a long time, but I feel like that's the equivalent of foobar2000 being a company or something.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#137

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.

Here's one way: once you release something publicly enough it becomes part of our culture. You don't own our culture, any part of it, even if you created some of the art in it. Your work lives in a context surrounded by other works you did not create, and could only have been created as a response to them. That's how art works. So while you have some rights to it, you don't have absolute and complete rights to determine what happens to it after release; it belongs primarily to society now, with a respectful nod towards you. People are free to talk about it, watch it, look at it, listen to it, learn from it in ways you never imagined. And you won't get paid for all of them. Welcome to creating art.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#138
post #135
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hew Raymond Griffiths, had never been to the US. He was extradited from Australia to the US for something that isn't considered a crime in Australia. The irony is this part: "Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008, after 5 weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia…

What in the actual fuck? He was detained for immigration authorities because 'prisoner for a crime that isn't a crime in my jurisdiction' isn't a legal immigration status?

Thanks for educating me about this.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#139
post #95
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Far more nuanced than great-grandparent's link implied.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no reason to believe this is the reason, but New Zealand does benefit from the movie industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_New_Zea... Keep in mind a 6 company oligarchy controls almost all of the media coming out of the United States. The United States has a lot more resources than New Zealand. So there are plenty of other ways for them to incentivize cooperation. I just thought I'd th…

Weta Digital. Complete scum shop based in Wellington. They do an incredible amount of movie animation and work employees insane hours. Fuck them.

This is the first negative Weta comment I've ever seen. You guys need to spread this message further.
Post reply on HN