Kim Dotcom wins battle in ongoing fight against U.S. extradition

Post by nitrogen » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #54

chrischen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People paid for their service too. So they are making money directly off of users’ illegal actions like how 1) airbnb users illegally converting rooms into short term rentals 2) amazon helping people avoid sales tax 3) uber lyft allowing drivers to drive taxis without a taxi license

As for point (2), technically it's on the consumer to pay use tax on an item that they did not pay sales tax on. Amazon was operating in a perfectly normal manner; it's just that interstate sales like that weren't common before the internet. The laws are still trying to catch up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamlined_Sales_Tax_Project

Post by the-pigeon » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

ben010783 wrote: post #80

redm wrote: post #70

Love Kim Dotcom or hate him, you have to applaud his tenacity in defending himself. When he was arrested in 2012, I don't think anyone remotely imagined he would still be battling, and, in many regards, winning against the US Government.

If you don't have money you take a deal and plead guilty. If you have money, you can drag things out for years.

Post by jaclaz » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

the-pigeon wrote: post #83

ben010783 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have money you take a deal and plead guilty. If you have money, you can drag things out for years.

Yeah but they froze most of his assets initially so he didn't have money to defend himself. It's been a mix of luck, US Government mishandling the case and the tenacity of Kim.

Post by dmd » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #75

icebraining wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about this specific case, but in the US they often use statutory damages instead: "the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringe…

We probably need a new kind of statutory damages geared to this kind of infringement. The current statutory damages are geared toward commercial infringement. Note, though, that she had to work really hard to get damages that high. As noted in your quote, statutory damages fall in a range. She probably would have gotten near the low end of the possible range if she had not tried to destroy evidence, had not perjured…

Post by digi_owl » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

some_account wrote: post #44

icebraining wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about this specific case, but in the US they often use statutory damages instead: "the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringe…

America is always winning the craziness award in these threads, due to being ultra capitalistic with no regard to common sense.