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

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

#521

Post by FredPret » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:27 PM UTC

HeckFeck wrote: post #145

preaching5271 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thu…

The maverick spirit is definitely more right that wrong, especially in the long run.

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

#522

Post by alephnerd » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:27 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #511

kube-system wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law History just gets rewritten daily. They took probably 10 years to attempt compliance at all. What's more, Google Video never had any organic participation (i.e. normal people uploading videos of themselves), and was almost exclusively pirated content. Its main differentiation (long forgotten in the age of youtube-dl) was actually how easy it was to download that…

> They started getting rid of pirated (and amateur content in general) once they had the monopoly on video, not before

That's a rewriting of history.

Google/YouTube started cracking down after Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc was reopened after appeals court ruled in Viacom's favor to listen to it's appeal in 2012 [1].

Google did develop ContentID as part of Google's damage control [0] when the case was in district court (2007-09) but half assed enforcement until the ruling in 2012 re-opened litigation, which forced Google's settlement with Viacom in 2014 [2].

People seem to forget that the Viacom litigation was an existential crisis for Google/YouTube, as the appeals court ruling could open the floodgates to litigation, and competitors ranging from Microsoft to CBS to the MPAA all supported Viacom [3]

[0] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118161295626932114

[1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

[2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-viacom-lawsuit-idU...

[3] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/via...

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

#523

Post by kube-system » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #511

kube-system wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law History just gets rewritten daily. They took probably 10 years to attempt compliance at all. What's more, Google Video never had any organic participation (i.e. normal people uploading videos of themselves), and was almost exclusively pirated content. Its main differentiation (long forgotten in the age of youtube-dl) was actually how easy it was to download that…

> History just gets rewritten daily.

> They took probably 10 years to attempt compliance at all.

ContentID has existed for all but 2 years of YouTube's entire existence. It was initially released less than a year after Google's purchase.

> Youtube was absolutely loaded with copyrighted material

And if they comply with Safe Harbor, it doesn't actually matter.

By comparison, what did Napster and Megaupload do?

Napster did nothing. Their argument was that they didn't need to comply at all.

Megaupload publicly pretended to comply, but intentionally nerfed their tooling to support non-compliance, and internally documented that they weren't complying.

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

#524

Post by znpy » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:30 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #447

znpy wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former megavideo user… i watched many American tv shows I wouldn’t have watched otherwise. And i wouldn’t have paid anyway because at the time as a teenager i had no money of my own to spend. Nowadays even when paying for content, it really feels like extortion, it’s unfair anyway (prices constantly increasing, and you still get ads even if you’re paying… might as well go back to pirating stuff)

you're moving the goalposts from "I didn't have money" to "I have money but it's not worth it".

Yes, because i did not have money when i was a teenager and have money now that i’m in my 30ies.

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

#525

Post by lenerdenator » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:30 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #386

sandworm101 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> this is a fight against america playing world police That is how Dotcom wants it characterized. Everyone else sees a fly-by-night website run by an eccentric millionaire making money by playing fast and loose with the law. It is one thing to be an outlaw subverting oppression by distributing free bread to poor people. It is another to be a bootlegger selling vodka under the table and then throwing huge invite-only…

I don't think your point stands. How would US citizens would feel if another country, say China, wanted to extradite a US citizen because he allegedly violated Chinese copyright law? Dotcom is absolutely right in saying that US is playing world police.

Depends. Are there actual reasonable grounds to suspect that the US citizen violated copyright law in China? Can China be held to granting them a fair trial with a reasonable punishment (read: not executing them in the courtyard and billing their family for the bullet) being prescribed if the US citizen is found guilty?

If those two things are present... well, then it is what it is. Now, I doubt China would be able to provide the fair trial part, but if we're trying to compare your situation to what Kim Dotcom is going through, it's a question we have to answer. I'd much rather take my chances in a US courtroom than a PRC courtroom.

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

#526

Post by kimungdotcom » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:30 PM UTC

[dead]

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

#527

Post by veidelis » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:31 PM UTC

Xen9 wrote: post #154

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…

As for the reason, Mr. Dotcom has claimed to have been a supporter lf WikiLeaks and this was probably not of signifigance, but I would overall bet 10% that his less public involvement with WikiLeaks & WikiLeaks-type activity was part of the analysis that led to him getting targeted. May be worth to compare the usual tactics of IP owning companies to what happened to Kim. I have a feeling that it could be shown that t…

Why was he a failure politically?

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

#528

Post by hnpolicestate » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:31 PM UTC

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…

- "What motivates you?"

Intelligence operative or peasant. Pick one.

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

#529

Post by hylaride » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:32 PM UTC

halyconWays wrote: post #429

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…

There's no evidence that piracy causes any type of harm to these multi-trillion dollar American entertainment conglomerates. Moving heaven and earth to extract a citizen from another country using the power of the state, and drag him before their feet is tyrannical.

> There's no evidence that piracy causes any type of harm to these multi-trillion dollar American entertainment conglomerates.

I think there is business "harm" to piracy, but it's (mostly) vastly overstated. If I illegally download a song/movie I wouldn't have otherwise bought, did anybody lose out? There was a reason Napster was popular in colleges, because many of those people were cash poor. Music industry revenue peaked in 2000 at $21B and went down to ~$7B in 2015 before steadily growing again. Also, the entertainment industry are not multi-trillion dollar conglomerates. Not even close. Disney is worth $160B and Netflix is $260B.

That being said, if it were up to the music industry we'd still be paying the inflation adjusted equivalent of $20 for an album we only like one song on and we wouldn't be able to create out own playlists. You can only fight the consumer for so long (and they fought long and hard). That's to say nothing about the morality of repeatedly increasing copyright from 14 years to life plus 70 (which is BS). The Beatles' great great grandchildren (or whoever owns the rights later on) shouldn't still be benefiting from intellectual property.

> Moving heaven and earth to extract a citizen from another country using the power of the state, and drag him before their feet is tyrannical.

This is what rule of law is. KDC knew he was breaking the law and not only didn't do anything about it, but invested in an encouraged it to benefit himself financially. Even after being charged and having megaupload shut down, he then tried again. Do you really feel sorry for him?

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

#530

Post by lenerdenator » Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 5:33 PM UTC

sensanaty wrote: post #458

stalfosknight wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not the US, then who do you suggest could plausibly lead (I would even say prop up) the free world and the global economy?

Catering to trillion dollar media companies is not exactly my idea of freedom.

Most people, not just trillion-dollar media companies, have at least some interest in seeing intellectual property protections enforced.

You can argue that there's too much protection, or that it doesn't afford equal protection under the law for smaller parties.