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

551–560 of 1001 posts

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

#551

Post by LastTrain »

petre wrote: post #509
skullone wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, he paid people for, and promoted the upload of copywrited works. He knowingly participated and basically tailored his products to pirating. Some people love him, but he will see his day in court apparently, but no one wants to even deal with him because he's gone crazy.

Sure, pirating means comandeering of a ship, not distribtion of copyrighted works. He probably has a plan in a nearby Pacific jurisdiction like Vanuatu. Best of luck!

The language we humans use in casual conversation is a lot more fluid than that, you need to be able to deal with it.

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

#552

Post by reducesuffering »

DSingularity wrote: post #144
Tade0 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tweet about opposing war in ukraine arguing that NATO is outdated and not in the interest of Ukrainians?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. Hailing from a country that joined NATO in the 90s I wouldn't brand a person arguing this as being on communist payroll - just ignorant beyond measure. Russia has been a consistently bad neighbour for decades now and I for one am happy that in my coun…

[flagged]

> NATO encroachment on its borders.

I see you've never seen Estonia or Latvia on a map. Nor realize NATO is already there. Why have they not been invaded while since 2008, Georgia and Ukraine have? Total mystery.

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

#554

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#555

Post by jrflowers »

gliiics wrote: post #513
throwup238 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree, and in fact I did not compare them. I asked an entirely different question. You can re-read the first line of my comment if you think I'm putting those two things on the same level, and you will see that I agree with: > He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

What is the point of asking that question if you strictly intended no comparison between the subject of the post you’re replying to and the people you mentioned?

It is like posting “You have interesting thoughts about Kim Dotcom. What is better, paragliding or parasailing?”

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

#556

Post by recursive »

yunohn wrote: post #553
junon wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally speaking, depends on the country.

Actually curious, in which country is what he did fully legal?

> As of December 2019, Eritrea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, and WTO Observer countries Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan are not a party to any copyright convention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation...

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

#557

Post by sandworm101 »

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?

>> hosting pirated content?

If you run a service that allows people to upload data, you are hosting pirated content. The DMCA was specifically designed to address this, to create a system whereby those who host data are not on the hook for every violation. The issue is not that you host pirated content but whether you are following all the rules necessary to enjoy safe harbor protection.

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

#558

Post by meiraleal »

LastTrain wrote: post #551
petre wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, pirating means comandeering of a ship, not distribtion of copyrighted works. He probably has a plan in a nearby Pacific jurisdiction like Vanuatu. Best of luck!

The language we humans use in casual conversation is a lot more fluid than that, you need to be able to deal with it.

Not when the language is used to accuse someone of a crime. He is no pirate, obviously.

> He knowingly participated and basically tailored his products to pirating

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

#559

Post by meiraleal »

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.

Did it? If I go to youtube right now, I will get tons of ads selling illegal stuff which Youtube profit from. This is against the law but it seems that they don't get bothered by the law enforcers.

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

#560

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

csallen wrote: post #481
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.

Minor nitpick, but he was not stealing, he was infringing copyrights. To "steal" is to take another's rivalrous property without permission, such that you now possess it, but they no longer have it. To "infringe a copyright" is to make and distribute a copy of another person's work without their permission. Both illegal, but very different things. What targets of copyright infringement are losing is not their propert…

This. The phrase "intellectual property" is an attempt to confuse a censorship strategy that's a few hundred years old with an entirely separate tradition that's been with us for millennia. They're very different, whatever words you use for them.
Post reply on HN