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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by sam2426679 »

kube-system wrote: post #346
OutOfHere wrote: post #312

YouTube has a thousand to a million times more copyrighted content than Megaupload ever had. And no, not all of it is via partnerships with the copyright holders. Kim's problem apparently was that he didn't bribe Congress.

YouTube didn't bribe congress. They built significant tooling that gave the rights holders what they wanted, even beyond what the law required them to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y... . To this day, rights-holders don't even have to take legal action or issue a formal DMCA takedown to have videos taken down or siphon off the profits of those who use their content. It is even automated.

This quote from Kim, in the op, indicates the same:

> “[T]he obedient US colony in the South Pacific just decided to extradite me for what users uploaded to Megaupload, unsolicited, and what copyright holders were able to remove with direct delete access instantly and without question.”

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

#412

Post by gengwyn »

vasco wrote: post #237
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…

One thing you learn over the years is that people make up everything. I can't recall the exact quote but the character Frank Underwood once said something to the effect of "the law is the law, but the law is people and I know people". Meaning he could control the situation regardless. The opposite also happens and you can see cases like this or Shkreli, Dotcom and others where they think being edgy on top of minor cr…

Sometimes this translates even down to the individual level. I've watched a lot of police bodycam videos and it's surprising how many people make their situation worse by being loud obnoxious tightwads when calmly answering questions and handing over your license would have you on your way in 5 minutes.

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

#413

Post by kube-system »

OutOfHere wrote: post #367
kube-system wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube didn't bribe congress. They built significant tooling that gave the rights holders what they wanted, even beyond what the law required them to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y... . To this day, rights-holders don't even have to take legal action or issue a formal DMCA takedown to have videos taken down or siphon off the profits of those who use their content. It is even automated.

Google has had a massive lobbying effort for a long time, and donating to Congress is a part of it. If not for it, how is it that a takedown process wasn't sufficient for Mega, but it is sufficient for Google? How is it that the rights-holders didn't engage Mega into having such tooling?

Quite simple really. Merely having a takedown process isn't enough to comply with the law. It must actually be complied with. YouTube went above and beyond in this, not only complying with DMCA requests, but not even requiring them. Megaupload's takedown process was a sham. Yes, they had a page where DMCA requests could be submitted, but actual compliance was poor, and intentionally so.

Compliance is a critical part of the DMCA. Once a site knows about infringing content, they lose safe harbor provisions.

Also, how do you think lobbying Congress would even hypothetically help YouTube in court? The DMCA doesn't have any different provisions for YouTube than it does for Megaupload.

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

#414

Post by z_ »

stainablesteel wrote: post #118
preaching5271 wrote: post #24

I appreciate Kim Dotcom for running MegaUpload and later Mega, in a time when the internet was younger and wilder. Also for his pirate spirit and "stick it to the man" attitude. But everything has a limit, specifically his resistance against the law, even if he hid it behind virtues. I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. Isn't it wiser to sto…

not really, his website was based on hong kong, this is a fight against america playing world police, which i'm on board with they have no business going after just a single man so fervently, he's a foreign national and the websites weren't based in the US

Mega stored files in the US, Carpathia and Cogent were the providers specifically.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case

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

#416

Post by twojacobtwo »

commodoreboxer wrote: post #392
jokethrowaway wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Educate the next generations. Maybe we'll have a generation of people with a backbone again who will be able to free us from government oppression. The trend is going the other way, so I think we're heading to socialism-ville for a repetition of last century's lessons.

A lot of the best things we have in the modern world are "socialism". Libraries and parks are socialist. Socialism isn't a dirty word, nor is it an argument or a criticism.

This is why definition of terms is so important in discussions of this type. The word socialism/socialist has been bastardized and propagandized beyond comprehension now. Socialism covers a broad range of potential policies and structures, but in modern discourse the average person seems to slot it in almost exclusively to mean government tyranny and communism. Meanwhile communism now seems to mean evil beyond any consideration.

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

#417

Post by kmeisthax »

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.

Fox News is an Australian product built to flood the US with far-right, pro-business outrage. We'll get out of your lane once you get out of ours.

All kidding aside, describing these sorts of things in terms of national influence is extremely unproductive. New Zealand wouldn't be turning itself into a pro-commercial-pirate haven or anticopyright haven but for the influence of the US[1]. The question regarding extradition is not "should we consider what Kim Dotcom did to be a crime[0]" but "do we abduct him to another jurisdiction to face trial." It's bikeshedding over the color of the wood on the electric chair.

[0] In general, extradition treaties only apply for acts that are crimes in both jurisdictions.

[1] Even China's pro-copyright, they just don't want to pay America for any of it. If they were anti-copyright they'd be freely sharing all the "IP" they keep stealing.

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

#418

Post by localfirst »

_the_inflator wrote: post #12

This Kim dude. Neverending story. Amiga (never heard of him during my scene time), then his alleged mobile ISDN service, MEGA. He seemed like the shady poster child for every trend who got stopped before jumping once more publicly on Crypto.

He has done some shady stuff in Germany with stocks

then used those proceeds to launch his other businesses

I really enjoyed Megaupload & rapidshare those were almost as good as the WaReZ days if not better: direct links to any digital content without waiting for seeders

It's a shame. Arresting Dotcom won't do anything to curb piracy in fact it would raise the stakes even higher and more untraceable leading to more uncensored content that would be deemed "harmful"

Dotcom should've chosen Russia or China instead of NZ but obviously the quality of life isn't quite up to par with NZ. Russia dacha outside moscow would've been great for him without worries of US extradition.

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

#419

Post by micromacrofoot »

moralestapia wrote: post #371
bArray wrote: post #358

It is rumoured (by locals) that Kim Dotcom has been allowed to reside in New Zealand (being a German/Finish) on the basis that he spent his money in New Zealand. I don't think they are in a rush to extradite him to the US, and the US will not come after NZ for the money spent.

NZ is not a random atoll island in the Pacific. Kim Dotcom is wealthy, but still way far, way far from having enough money to bribe the whole country like that. Orders of magnitude are a thing.

NZ also has no shortage of rich people with apocalypse houses there

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

#420

Post by nadermx »

lossolo wrote: post #342
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…

Megaupload was not deleting content. They only deleted links to the content. So, if you had 10 links to the same video, and a copyright holder contacted them to delete their content under link #1, they would only remove that link but leave the rest (links and content) intact.

Is this proven? Is it possible someone else uploaded the content after it was deleted?
Post reply on HN