Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

stuff.co.nz

141–143 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#141

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?

Or US 'contractors' to Iraq. The US has many citizens that rightly should stand trial for crimes a whole lot more serious than facilitating copyright violation, and none ever will. Reciprocity in situations like these would be very much appreciated and the US is very very reluctant to let any of its citizens be extradited. It happens, but the frequency is dis-proportional to the point of being comical.

What about What about the What about the ex CEO of Union Carbide who still has a warrant out for his arrest in India for the Bhopal incident. Basically this is a power game. If your little the US system screws you. If your big like China and ripping off Nike sneakers you can thumb your nose at the US legal system.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#142
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I concur.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#143
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine. What Spotify did?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/musician-david-lo...
Post reply on HN