Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#141

Post by agpl3141592 »

vessenes wrote: post #103

A fair amount of “this is fine, governments enforce IP laws and that’s a public good” vibes in here, which is all a very reasonable perspective. I’d argue Kim was too successful and too unlikeable at the end of the day, and that was probably his downfall. Toward the end, MEGA had transitioned to actually partnering with hip hop artists for distribution. The US has a long history of IP rights holders criminalizing new…

You do know that they pushed it left and right as 'dropbox' share everything platform targeting pirate groups with referral money right?

He was not early or anything he was literally pushing pirated movies and TV shows

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#142

Post by zerkten »

timmg wrote: post #94
tedk-42 wrote: post #21

As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. With some 'diplomacy', Julian Assange was brought home after near 15 years fighting for BS extradition charges. The news and politicians in Australia follow almost lock step with whatever our US overlords allow us to say. It's been more of a thing lately with them trying to secure the pacific away from China's sphere of influence and the biggest 'dumb…

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Not an expert, but my guess is that there is (probably valid) concern about China. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

China is a concern for Australia whether the US is in the picture or not. Australia's interests are highly aligned with those of the US. The increased engagement from the US is being welcomed by most Australians, but the issue is really around the implementation.

AUKUS is one of these huge deals with the results coming many years after huge investments creating great uncertainty. That makes it easy to attack politically.

EDIT: What's missed by the original commenter is that Australia was already investing in submarines from France. If delivered, there would be similar outcomes. The project had just as much uncertainty around it and was off-track when AUKUS was announced.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#144

Post by DSingularity »

Tade0 wrote: post #104
DSingularity wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the classic. Everybody who opposes american foreign policy is labeled. Tweet about opposing the genocide in gaza? Oh dont listen to him -- he is pro khamas. Tweet about opposing war in ukraine arguing that NATO is outdated and not in the interest of Ukrainians? Oh pay no attention to him -- he is on the communist payroll. I understand when leaders in politics or industry make these character-assasination atta…

> Tweet about opposing war in ukraine arguing that NATO is outdated and not in the interest of Ukrainians? Oh pay no attention to him -- he is on the communist payroll. Hailing from a country that joined NATO in the 90s I wouldn't brand a person arguing this as being on communist payroll - just ignorant beyond measure. Russia has been a consistently bad neighbour for decades now and I for one am happy that in my coun…

[flagged]

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#145

Post by HeckFeck »

preaching5271 wrote: post #91
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. I'm far more concerned with the stuff that governments get away with, including infringement of the freedom to share information.

Totally fair point, but what can you do? This is how the world works. Fighting such beasts is pointless. You might tame them with lobby money, but no billionaire is interested. And we're now talking about the human spirit that cannot be chained, as also seen in Pirate Bay or Snowden. Sure, people do need heroes and hope from time to time. But I have become less romantic over the years, and more careful.

You can adapt and fit in to the establishment, and I wouldn't suggest any moral problem with it. We definitely need stability - the raising of children requires it, trappings like clubs and societies and clean streets are great, but I think the spirit of mavericks like Kim is much more 'right' about something that institutions will always miss.

I can't celebrate this at all, and I am never sympathising with legal thuggery. It is just naked power exerting itself and it will always be ugly.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#146

Post by rendall »

chx wrote: post #125
tedk-42 wrote: post #21

As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. With some 'diplomacy', Julian Assange was brought home after near 15 years fighting for BS extradition charges. The news and politicians in Australia follow almost lock step with whatever our US overlords allow us to say. It's been more of a thing lately with them trying to secure the pacific away from China's sphere of influence and the biggest 'dumb…

[flagged]

Well, for the sake of argument, assume everything you say is true. I think it's not true but let's roll with it.

Still, the USA attempted to extradite a foreign national for an act that is only a crime in the US but nowhere else, that occurred on foreign soil. Further, the charges were retaliation for activity that is legally protected in the USA but annoyed powerful people.

Aren't you at all concerned by that egregious overreach? It's un-American if you're an American patriot and alarming if you're not.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#148

Post by seivan »

DSingularity wrote: post #62
popcalc wrote: post #2

One-way flight to Russia? His Twitter feed for the last decade does give merit to the idea that he's been on the payroll.

Ah yes, the classic. Everybody who opposes american foreign policy is labeled. Tweet about opposing the genocide in gaza? Oh dont listen to him -- he is pro khamas. Tweet about opposing war in ukraine arguing that NATO is outdated and not in the interest of Ukrainians? Oh pay no attention to him -- he is on the communist payroll. I understand when leaders in politics or industry make these character-assasination atta…

[dead]

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#149

Post by _djo_ »

zik wrote: post #54
josefresco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your opinion why is the submarine deal/F-35 program "totally useless" for Australia? Are you saying it's the wrong equipment? Too expensive? Not needed?

The submarines are almost certainly useless. We won't get them for decades. We're not even allowed to service the nuclear reactors when we do get them. And the technology is already an old one and will likely already be superceded by the new much quieter air-independent fuel cell and lithium battery technologies which other countries are adopting.

Air-independent fuel cell and battery powered submarines are not at all a replacement for nuclear submarines, nor even really competing with them. No matter how good the tech becomes, diesel-electric subs running fuel cell AIPs will always have shorter range, less submerged time, and lower speeds than nuclear-powered submarines. Each time they surface, even to periscope level, the chances of detection go up massively.

That's why diesel-electric submarines are best suited for coastal defence, especially of small countries, whereas larger countries with huge areas of territory to protect benefit from having nuclear submarines.

Whether it's the right decision for Australia to get these subs under AUKUS is a fair debate, but it's not at all accurate to claim that they're using 'old' technology that is being superseded by AIP.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#150

Post by vaylian »

catapart wrote: post #74
throwaway48540 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a human. He just shared songs on the the internet. He's treated like a war criminal.

He didn't "share songs on the internet". He created a site where you can upload anything with complete privacy and anonymity. And then used it for racketeering, allegedly, which is where the government interest starts. The RIAA/MPAA want their pound of flesh, too, and it gave plenty of fertile ground for the US DOJ to build a case around so that they could get discovery and find out what they were really trying to ge…

> But I'll never defend a human trafficker either

Wait, where did that come from? Did Kim Dotcom facilitate human trafficking?

Post reply on HN