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

Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

stuff.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#51

Post by DanBC »

VanillaLime wrote: post #33
michaelmrose wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be subject to US law as a non us citizen regardless or would you like US citizens hauled off to saudi arabia to answer decency charges?

Indecency isn't a crime in the US, so you couldn't get extradited for it. If you had committed a crime in Saudi Arabia that is also illegal in the US and the US courts have ruled that the extradition is legal, I don't see what's wrong with being extradited.

If you're a gay man you face much more serious consequences from that extradition.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#52

Post by DanBC »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #39
VanillaLime wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indecency isn't a crime in the US, so you couldn't get extradited for it. If you had committed a crime in Saudi Arabia that is also illegal in the US and the US courts have ruled that the extradition is legal, I don't see what's wrong with being extradited.

Copyright infringement isn't a crime in NZ...

It is if you do it as part of a business. Downloading a movie isn't a crime (but is illegal), but burning it to dvd and selling it turns it into a crime.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#53

Post by scrollaway »

Sven7 wrote: post #46
nikcub wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really grinds me that he is portrayed by some as an unjust victim of US gov malice and a champion for internet rights issues when he is nothing more than a thief, liar and conman. It doesn't help that people like Snowden, Greenwald and Assange associated themselves with his cause when they appeared at his election event in Auckland where he promised a bombshell against the government but produced what were likely…

So just like YouTube.

Yeah, people do tend to forget that most media consumption startups essentially got bootstrapped with a huge amount of copyright infringement. YouTube, Spotify, ...

The difference is of course that those startups end up making their content legal. But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#54

Post by dcposch »

digler999 wrote: post #19
solipsism wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand your point. You blame our politicians for the fact that Latin American countries refuse to extradite criminals?

The point is that there was a full SWAT team raid, home invasion, and helicopters to catch a fucking movie pirate . That is what they expend their resources on. It's ridiculous.

Not a "movie pirate", someone who watched a pirated movie.

He ran a business and made 8 figures selling other peoples content without permission.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#55

Post by norswap »

nikcub wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #2

Process arguments aside (and there may be process arguments that demolish the US case here, and I care about process too, especially if they involve getting evidence in bogus ways): The US has Kim Schmitz dead to rights in this case. There's a whole mythology about what MegaUpload actually was, and it gets partial anecdotal support from people who, for instance, used it or had friends who used it solely as a sort of…

It really grinds me that he is portrayed by some as an unjust victim of US gov malice and a champion for internet rights issues when he is nothing more than a thief, liar and conman. It doesn't help that people like Snowden, Greenwald and Assange associated themselves with his cause when they appeared at his election event in Auckland where he promised a bombshell against the government but produced what were likely…

That's one way too look at it. The other way is that he made content available when the producers wouldn't. How long do you have to wait to get TV shows in the EU while the US merrily fills the internet with spoiler?

His motivation weren't noble; but as far as thieves go, I'll take Kim Dotcom over the MPAA or the RIAA.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#56

Post by goldenkey »

such_a_casual wrote: post #17

I just want to say that many, many moons ago when I was still just a lad, I released my first ever computer program to the public. Very soon after someone uploaded a copy to megaupload without my permission. I submitted a copyright complaint to megaupload and it was swiftly removed. I will always remember that. Thank you Kim. Once a month in my country someone shoots up a school and now we've had a terrorist attack.…

There's no ignorance. It's willful, deliberate, and capital-financed dirt-digging.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#57

Post by GauntletWizard »

michaelmrose wrote: post #31
GauntletWizard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if I am running a scam on US users, using US services to do so, and hiring US employees to run the scam, then I am operating in the US, even if I never set foot there. You can argue any kind of racketeering is immune to foreign prosecution if you argue against Dotcom's extradition, and those arguments are no more valid.

You shouldn't be subject to US law as a non us citizen regardless or would you like US citizens hauled off to saudi arabia to answer decency charges?

Would you care to point out some US companies that have hosted servers and hired employees in Saudi Arabia where those servers and employees were flaunting Saudi law?

Further, New Zealand made their own choice to extradite him. They could have refused, they instead chose to. The alternative might have been an international incident, but they decided to aid the US and turn him over. The US is not so all-powerful that it can compel governments to act against their own best interest, only powerful enough to align interests, by hook or crook.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#58

Post by jsmith0295 »

such_a_casual wrote: post #17

I just want to say that many, many moons ago when I was still just a lad, I released my first ever computer program to the public. Very soon after someone uploaded a copy to megaupload without my permission. I submitted a copyright complaint to megaupload and it was swiftly removed. I will always remember that. Thank you Kim. Once a month in my country someone shoots up a school and now we've had a terrorist attack.…

Crime which costs U.S. companies directly leads to a variety of issues. But basically, it means America has less wealth, and the government has less tax revenue. It makes plenty of sense for them to enforce copyright laws. It's a net positive for the economy not to allow people to profit off of IP theft.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#59

Post by djsumdog »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #57
michaelmrose wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be subject to US law as a non us citizen regardless or would you like US citizens hauled off to saudi arabia to answer decency charges?

Would you care to point out some US companies that have hosted servers and hired employees in Saudi Arabia where those servers and employees were flaunting Saudi law? Further, New Zealand made their own choice to extradite him. They could have refused, they instead chose to. The alternative might have been an international incident, but they decided to aid the US and turn him over. The US is not so all-powerful that…

> The US is not so all-powerful that it can compel governments to act against their own best interest, only powerful enough to align interests, by hook or crook.

What world do you live in? The United States often compels governments to act against their own interests. The 1973 US backed coup leading to the death of 11,000 civilians. The Iranian-Contras. The School of the Americas, which literally trained terrorists in South America, Iraq!

Thirty years from now, declassified information will show the US caused the rebellion in Libya and that the US directly funded ISIS.

Granted New Zealand is a Commonwealth State and it'd be much more difficult to go to war with a developed English speaking nation, but they are still under the thumb of the US/UK empire. They ruled the spying on Kim Dotcom was illegal, then changed the laws to make it retroactively legal...and also allow the GCHB to spy on anyone they want.

Re: Kim Dotcom loses extradition case

#60

Post by hilbertseries »

scrollaway wrote: post #53
Sven7 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just like YouTube.

Yeah, people do tend to forget that most media consumption startups essentially got bootstrapped with a huge amount of copyright infringement. YouTube, Spotify, ... The difference is of course that those startups end up making their content legal. But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.

MU was paying the people that upload illegal content, specifically because they were uploading illegal content.
Post reply on HN