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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by behringer »

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.

Went above and beyond for Hollywood, not for compliance. The tools are only available to the studios. Everyone else can sod off.

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

#532

Post by floam »

arresin wrote: post #510
aestetix wrote: post #500

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…

That tracks with the fact that they use a .nz now.

As long as he’s calling himself Dotcom, he is explicitly property of Verisign.

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

#533

Post by janmo »

aestetix wrote: post #500

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…

His mistake was to host content in the US.

"Megaupload is based in Hong Kong, but some of the alleged pirated content was hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va., which gave federal authorities jurisdiction, the indictment said." - Jun 25, 2012

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/internet-file-sharing-giant-...

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

#534

Post by next_xibalba »

janmo wrote: post #533
aestetix wrote: post #500

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…

His mistake was to host content in the US. "Megaupload is based in Hong Kong, but some of the alleged pirated content was hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va., which gave federal authorities jurisdiction, the indictment said." - Jun 25, 2012 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/internet-file-sharing-giant-...

Wouldn't his mistake have been hosting pirated content?

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

#535

Post by Temporary_31337 »

kypro wrote: post #492
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…

Which of course simply confirms that current elites are just sanctioned criminals that no one dares to challenge.

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

#536

Post by xdennis »

tim333 wrote: post #215
stainablesteel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like.

But they have no jurisdiction as he was not doing that IN the US. When the Pirate Bay guys were persecuted, the US got Sweden to convict them. They weren't extradited to the US.

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

#537

Post by junon »

next_xibalba wrote: post #534
janmo wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His mistake was to host content in the US. "Megaupload is based in Hong Kong, but some of the alleged pirated content was hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va., which gave federal authorities jurisdiction, the indictment said." - Jun 25, 2012 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/internet-file-sharing-giant-...

Wouldn't his mistake have been hosting pirated content?

Legally speaking, depends on the country.

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

#538

Post by spookie »

Ringz wrote: post #484
londons_explore wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which search engines are these? I ask for a friend who is doing research in this area.

Google with search operators wield more results than one expects. Theoritically speaking, of course.

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

#540

Post by cdchn »

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.

>when scholars and artists gleefully cribbed from each other's work without attribution and copyright didn't even exist

This was also a time before mass copying and distribution on a massive scale.

Post reply on HN