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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by Izkata »

xnyan wrote: post #393
colechristensen wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the first 5 years videos were limited to 10 minutes. Clips of things were popular and there were things split between many videos, but that's not what I remember the people around me using youtube for.

In my social groups at the time(late highschool, early college) it was exclusively used for watching TV shows. The 10min limit was only a minor annoyance, and more than made up for the fact that it was free fast video hosting at time when that was extremely rare. It was not just a nerd thing either, I remember someone I was dating in the mid 2000s bemoaning that YouTube had cracked down on TV content.

Also 10 minutes is right about where the commercial breaks would be anyway.

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

#492

Post by kypro »

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.

Success even when obtained with some illegality is fine so long as it plays well with the interests of elites. Kim didn't just break the law, he also painted himself a target by upsetting people with power.

For all of his flaws, I think where I'd give someone like SBF a significant amount of credit is that he understood very well that if he wanted to do dodgy things he had to remain on the right side of those in power.

Kim hasn't played the game right. Had he tried to win friends from the start he may not be in the situation he's in now.

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

#493

Post by throwup238 »

gliiics wrote: post #483
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…

It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money was. But: > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

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

#494

Post by FredPret »

scarmig wrote: post #479
FredPret wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech.

Copying scientific ideas (with attribution!) is completely OK and good.

Having heterodox ideas is vital for society.

Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil.

But making a movie is a commercial enterprise that involves risking a bunch of capital. It rarely pans out to make a profit. Copying it without payment is a very minor form of theft, but it's still theft.

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

#495

Post by pavlov »

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.

> “If nobody or barely anyone used Megaupload, he wouldn’t have been in as much trouble”

And if Captain Kidd hadn’t managed to raid any ships, he would have avoided the whole unfortunate hanging business. It goes without saying that unsuccessful criminals mostly don’t get caught.

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

#497

Post by tick_tock_tick »

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

New Zealand is for all practical purposes a USA protectorate. If you want to break USA law don't do it in a country that is dependent on the USA.

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

#498

Post by MacsHeadroom »

scarmig wrote: post #479
FredPret wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The immorality comes in when you start using physical force to punish people

for sharing or facilitating the thinking of thoughts you feel entitled to.*

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

#499

Post by kylebenzle »

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…

That is 100% the antithesis of the hacker spirit and I shudder at your callousness.

1. All information wants to be free.

2. The second something is digitized it becomes "free".

3. Artificially depriving someone of something that is free for personal profit is immoral.

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

#500

Post by aestetix »

I wonder if people have forgotten the legal grounds on which the US claimed jurisdiction. I may be misremembering, but I think it was because megaupload.com was registered as a .COM, and the .COM top level domain is owned by Verisign, an American company, and therefore the US has jurisdiction over it.

I guess one lesson from this is that running out of .COM domain names is not a bad thing, because it reduces the grip the American empire has on the internet.

Post reply on HN