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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by ffhhj »

mjhay wrote: post #563
sigmoid10 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank goodness that Google execs are too high-profile to be prosecuted!

And that's why they'll keep feeding the surveillance machine.

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

#642

Post by Xen9 »

EionRobb wrote: post #606
veidelis wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I'd consider not getting seats a failure overall, though he managed to get attention and the first elections werent that bad (if I recall correctly).

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

#643

Post by hinkley »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #545
hinkley wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a friend who threw amazing parties because he had this sort of transgressive sense of humor. He got rich, retired young, and I fully believe that the professional peer pressure was the main thing keeping his screws tight because he just fell apart over three years. At one point he was telling my spouse he was trying to make himself crazy. Congratulations bud, you already are. Sane people don’t do that. Predato…

How did your friend get rich, and how did people take advantage of him?

Massive mooches, and a “situationship” with a woman who wasn’t quite his girlfriend.

Microsoft millionaire.

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

#644

Post by scotty79 »

gliiics wrote: post #483
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…

It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money was. But: > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

> > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

Or maybe even more generally to people like Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet? Because maybe at some point enough should be enough?

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

#645

Post by colordrops »

FredPret wrote: post #518
kylebenzle wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is 100% the antithesis of the hacker spirit and I shudder at your callousness. 1. All information wants to be free. 2. The second something is digitized it becomes "free". 3. Artificially depriving someone of something that is free for personal profit is immoral.

I have to be a communist to have "hacker spirit"? Hardly. 1. All information wants to be free. Information on the order of complexity of a movie cannot want anything. 2. The second something is digitized it becomes "free". Nearly free to copy, doesn't mean you're free to take it. 3. Artificially depriving someone of something that is free for personal profit is immoral. I get the sentiment here but I don't think it f…

it's very simple. trying to apply the concept of property to information is unnatural and has hindered human progress more than it has helped. Information is not like physical property, which is limited in supply. In fact it doesn't even really exist. To tell me that having the atoms on MY hard drive or MY ink molecules on MY paper arranged in a certain pattern is absurd. I'm not depriving anyone of anything by doing this. I am the one being deprived by not being allowed to arrange them how I wish.

To try to own information is like trying to own a flame. I lit your candle with my candle, so I own the flame on your candle. Making a copy is the same. To claim you own the copy is just plain stupid.

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

#646

Post by robocat »

xp84 wrote: post #593
more_corn wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMCA safe harbor says you don’t have to actively police your content but you have to take it down if a copyright holder complains. YouTube had robust tooling to take down content when they received a complaint. They got sued anyway, they won because the evidence showed they always took the content down (and that Viacom the party who sued was active in putting the content up there in the first place)

> Viacom the party who sued was active in putting the content up there in the first place Source? I missed that story, and that sounds hilarious.

Referenced here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41259611

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

#647

Post by scotty79 »

FredPret wrote: post #494
scarmig wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech. Copying scientific ideas (with attribution!) is completely OK and good. Having heterodox ideas is vital for society. Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil. But making a movie is a commercial enterprise that involves risking a bunch of capital. It rarely pans out to make a profit. Copying it without payment is a very minor form of th…

> Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil.

Like forcing people think that copying is theft? Or that by clicking a button you agree to few hundred page agreement you couldn't possibly read or understand?

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

#648

Post by panta »

big-green-man wrote: post #619
bdcravens wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was he trying to stick it to the man, or find a way to enrich himself off of content that people were already sharing? There's a lot of retcon-ing those like him, Ross Ulbricht, etc as freedom fighters, when the truth is they were simply capitalists.

You can fight for freedom while being a capitalist. In fact, you can fight for freedom with capitalism.

Only when you are not stepping on the toes of bigger capitalists.

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

#649

Post by microtherion »

bdcravens wrote: post #580
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…

Was he trying to stick it to the man, or find a way to enrich himself off of content that people were already sharing? There's a lot of retcon-ing those like him, Ross Ulbricht, etc as freedom fighters, when the truth is they were simply capitalists.

Kim Dotcom is simply a career criminal, settling on piracy after having previously been convicted of trafficking in stolen phone calling cards and embezzlement. He simply figured out a crime that is socially more accepted than what he engaged in previously, but it was always about the money for him.
Post reply on HN