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

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

Post by csdreamer7 »

umvi wrote: post #578
pembrook wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter because, as the dominant world power and arbiter of the world's currency, the US can invent legal grounds to do pretty much anything to anyone. The US government is so powerful, they are the only country that enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave the country. The US treasury will withhold the a…

USA can't tax non-citizens. Revoke citizenship if you really don't want to pay. That comes with a lot of downsides though (no more US passport, no getting rescued by the US if you wander into North Korea, etc), which implies the taxes aren't for nothing just because you live out-of-country.

> USA can't tax non-citizens. Revoke citizenship if you really don't want to pay. That comes with a lot of downsides though (no more US passport, no getting rescued by the US if you wander into North Korea, etc), which implies the taxes aren't for nothing just because you live out-of-country.

The USA can, and does, tax non-citizens. Many countries tax non-citizens. Go out and buy a foreign stock-they will tax you on earnings or dividends. Go visit a country and pay the local sales tax.

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

#602

Post by thesz »

umvi wrote: post #578
pembrook wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter because, as the dominant world power and arbiter of the world's currency, the US can invent legal grounds to do pretty much anything to anyone. The US government is so powerful, they are the only country that enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave the country. The US treasury will withhold the a…

USA can't tax non-citizens. Revoke citizenship if you really don't want to pay. That comes with a lot of downsides though (no more US passport, no getting rescued by the US if you wander into North Korea, etc), which implies the taxes aren't for nothing just because you live out-of-country.

Ask Tinkov [1] about revoking citizenship.

[1] https://www.expatriationattorneys.com/tinkov-conceal-foreign...

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

#603

Post by lesuorac »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #460
adrr wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure if youtube execs had emails showing that they were actively encouraging and participating in the posting of copyrighted material on the site they would have been prosecuted as well. Thats the evidence against Kim Dotcom, emails.

Funny you should say that, because there are literally such emails all the way up to Google's C-suite. They leaked a few years ago when Viacom sued them for mass copyright infringement on Youtube. In that case Google even tried to argue that it was ok because it's the content creator's and not the service's fault. When are they getting prosecuted? >Revealing e-mails and other internal communications unsealed Thursday…

> In that case Google even tried to argue that it was ok because it's the content creator's and not the service's fault. When are they getting prosecuted?

I mean it's actually a pretty good argument.

If Viacom can't figure out which of the videos it's own employees/contractors uploaded to YouTube how can Google be expected to police it?

> [1] in some cases employees of the entertainment firms had uploaded their companies' content to YouTube voluntarily ... Google argued that since Viacom and its lawyers were "unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube" with Viacom's express authorization, "it was unreasonable to expect Google's employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission."

---

Afaik, the big difference between Mega and YouTube was that YT would remove the video. Mega instead had a system where it de-dup'd files so when a file was uploaded say ~10 times, all of those links were stored as a single file. So Mega would remove the link when requested but the 9 other links would still let you download that file.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....

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

#604

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#605

Post by Aspos »

throwadobe wrote: post #570
pembrook wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter because, as the dominant world power and arbiter of the world's currency, the US can invent legal grounds to do pretty much anything to anyone. The US government is so powerful, they are the only country that enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave the country. The US treasury will withhold the a…

> enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave. That's not quite true. If you _return_ your green card ("abandon it"), you no longer have to pay taxes. This makes sense as a parallel to being a US citizen, who would pay taxes even if they lived abroad. I'm not saying it's right, but we need to be accurate.

Even those who officially abandoned their green cards are subject to FATCA for life and often struggle to open bank accounts abroad.

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

#606

Post by EionRobb »

veidelis wrote: post #527
Xen9 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe in reference to his political party which failed to gain any seats in parliament? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Party_(New_Zealand)

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

#609

Post by singlow »

jrflowers wrote: post #555
gliiics wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?”

He was contrasting them. He was pointing out that the logic of the previous post falls apart when applying it to more noble subjects.

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

#610

Post by kube-system »

EionRobb wrote: post #599
kube-system wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is protected by international treaty.

I didn't think NZ was part of that treaty in 2012 when this all went down? https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/parties/remarks/NZ/... says it wasn't until 6 years later that it joined. But maybe a different treaty?

There's more than one. New Zealand is, for example, a member of these two:

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

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

Post reply on HN