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

471–480 of 1001 posts

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

#471

Post by FredPret »

colordrops wrote: post #455
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…

If everyone just sat back and allowed the powers to do what they please, we'd have absolutely nothing in this world. Countless have spilled blood or have been killed over the fight for freedom in the past giving us the humanist open society we have now. The fight is never over.

This isn't a clear-cut case of humanism vs something else.

Humanist values include right to property ownership, and the right to get the benefits of your work. Artists deserve that, and can sell their rights to big studios if they want.

Just because it's easy to copy something, or just because studio execs were idiots who wouldn't get on board with streaming, or whatever else, doesn't mean it's morally right to copy someone's work for free.

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

#472

Post by okl »

mise_en_place wrote: post #452

Much like Napster, his only real crime was success. If nobody or barely anyone used Megaupload, he wouldn’t have been in as much trouble. He paved the way for streaming and digital distribution of media. Megavideo in particular had the highest encoding rates possible at the time, even superior to YouTube.

> his only real crime was success

Nonsense. He has a criminal history going back to the early nineties.

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

#473

Post by localfirst »

gameman144 wrote: post #440
localfirst wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is US intellectual property a national security issue? I don't understand why they went to such extent pursuing a man for simply running a piracy site meanwhile US is losing influence and trust on geopolitical stage, shouldn't that be the bigger issue edit: im being rate limited so heres my response to comment below: I didn't say anybody was replacing US, merely they are losing credibility and prestige on world stage…

One of the reasons the US is viewed as such a good place to start a business is that the country will go to bat for their (favored) businesses internationally. National security is very far from the only scenario where the government will intervene in geopolitics, for better or worse.

[flagged]

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

#475

Post by FredPret »

localfirst wrote: post #426
tim333 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. And unlike say normal use of bittorrent, making a lot of money off it. And being the largest player doing that. I'm not sure about the morals but you can certainly understand financially why they've gone after him.

is US intellectual property a national security issue? I don't understand why they went to such extent pursuing a man for simply running a piracy site meanwhile US is losing influence and trust on geopolitical stage, shouldn't that be the bigger issue edit: im being rate limited so heres my response to comment below: I didn't say anybody was replacing US, merely they are losing credibility and prestige on world stage…

Genuinely curious about this opinion from outside my bubble - not trying to start a flame war.

If you say the US is losing influence, then who is taking their place in your view? Is China / the EU actually gaining influence?

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

#476

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

gengwyn wrote: post #412
vasco wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> people make their situation worse

I'd still be more likely to say the officer is making their situation worse. Take away the false dichotomy of loud and obnoxious vs calm and compliant and consider someone who doesn't answer irrelevant questions and is waiting for the officer to do their job (calm and not compliant). That person might have their situation worsened by the officer who thinks the person they're talking to is obligated to answer to the officer's whims.

(Based on what I've seen of police body camera footage.)

Anyway, I'm not really familiar with Kim Dotcom's case. It sounds like he's been more on the "loud and obnoxious" side and the authorities involved are not city response officers; it's hard to draw a parallel. Just pointing out that "you're just making it worse for yourself" is something a schoolyard bully would say to the kid who's too small to defend themself but refuses to comply.

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

#477

Post by diggan »

RyanAdamas wrote: post #421
diggan wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify too (allegedly) had bunch of pirated content to bootstrap the service. I guess the difference is that they (and YouTube) tried to pivot away from it, compared to Megaupload which seemed to have leaned into it instead.

Sure you're not thinking of Grooveshark which was the original Spotify?

Nope, I'm sure I'm thinking of Spotify. Grooveshark, AFAIK, didn't try to pivot and instead later got shutdown, compared to Spotify which seemed to have been able to navigate the pivot.

Edit: found at least one source now when I went looking: https://torrentfreak.com/how-the-pirate-bay-helped-spotify-b...

> When Spotify first launched several people noticed that some tracks still had tags from pirate groups such as FairLight in the title. Those are not the files you expect the labels to offer, but files that were on The Pirate Bay.

> Also, Spotify mysteriously offered music from a band that decided to share their music on The Pirate Bay, instead of the usual outlets. There’s only one place that could have originated from.

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

#478

Post by londons_explore »

kube-system wrote: post #463
mise_en_place wrote: post #452

Much like Napster, his only real crime was success. If nobody or barely anyone used Megaupload, he wouldn’t have been in as much trouble. He paved the way for streaming and digital distribution of media. Megavideo in particular had the highest encoding rates possible at the time, even superior to YouTube.

YouTube is way more successful than Megaupload or Napster. The difference is that YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law and Megaupload and Napster didn't.

With the right third party search engines, you can find almost any full movie on YouTube.

They don't have to stop pirates, just keep them in the shadows.

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

#479

Post by scarmig »

FredPret wrote: post #471
colordrops wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone just sat back and allowed the powers to do what they please, we'd have absolutely nothing in this world. Countless have spilled blood or have been killed over the fight for freedom in the past giving us the humanist open society we have now. The fight is never over.

This isn't a clear-cut case of humanism vs something else. Humanist values include right to property ownership, and the right to get the benefits of your work. Artists deserve that, and can sell their rights to big studios if they want. Just because it's easy to copy something, or just because studio execs were idiots who wouldn't get on board with streaming, or whatever else, doesn't mean it's morally right to copy…

Humanism arose during the Renaissance, when scholars and artists gleefully cribbed from each other's work without attribution and copyright didn't even exist.

It's perfectly fine to copy someone else's work. The immorality comes in when you start using physical force to punish people thinking thoughts you feel entitled to.

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

#480

Post by kstenerud »

treprinum wrote: post #207

Didn't YouTube get popular on pirated content first? What was the main difference of the initial phase of YouTube and MegaUpload? They both went legal later.

Kim was a maverick, and his political connections were weak and easy to break. If you don't have the connections, you shouldn't be playing such a dangerous game.
Post reply on HN