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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by 8338550bff96 »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #695
doctorpangloss wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did. YouTube has paid the piper here and continues to do so. It pays a lot of money to record labels right now. TV networks choose to run their own streaming, and YouTube enforces what networks ask for. Consider what things look like when you can't pirate. Many services now, like Claude, do not let you create password accounts, to make it less practicable to share a subscription. Apple News and Apple Arcade is tot…

Isn't Apple losing money on their streaming service though?

isn't costco losing money on hotdogs?

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

#702

Post by jfyi »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #688
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.

On the internet, questions like your first comment are statistically likely to be smug gotchas. It'd be nice if it was different, but it's not. So if that's not your intention, it's worthwhile to say so in the first place rather than assume people will understand.

Just to say up front, I think you are the only one that gets it here and am not criticizing you, but the answer in question could also be read that way (of course with the excuse that "the other guy did it first!").

Am I the only one that didn't read either that way? I think a lot of biases are hanging out in this conversation.

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

#703

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

thor-rodrigues wrote: post #46
finikytou wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sad to see that kind of comments in HN. I feel that 10 years ago there was more room for accepting that a political opponent should be free to speak up. now our educated masses are pushing for prison and extradition because they don't belong to the axis of good.... you def cannot be for opensource and its values and say things like that

I don't understand your line of thought. The question with Kim was not about open-source, was about copyright and intellectual property all along. As other comments noted, the man literally made millions distributing copyrighted material, while completely aware of what he was doing.

No he didn't. He made money through ads. The fact that copyright stuff was on the platform doesn't mean he should be arrested.

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

#704

Post by kaliqt »

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…

This is the wrong position to take. The government is wrong, and a bully, the answer is not to give them what they want.

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

#705

Post by Dylan16807 »

joshcryer wrote: post #700
Dylan16807 wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a DMCA for one user's copy of a file doesn't mean every other user's copy is violating copyright. And that's not a theoretical concern, I remember a recent tweet about google drive having false positives in that exact way.

That's an interesting argument but the hash for an "infringing file" would be universal across all copies of said file, since presumably the DMCA striker would be claiming the file as infringing. I doubt a jury would buy it.

They can claim that a file is infringing everywhere it exists but they'd often be wrong and I don't think inherently infringing files are a valid way to interpret copyright.

"Better safe than sorry" is certainly, uh, safer. But I don't know if you can really say the DMCA requires it.

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

#706

Post by bergkvist »

diggan wrote: post #408
treprinum wrote: post #207

Didn't YouTube get popular on pirated content first? What was the main difference of the initial phase of YouTube and MegaUpload? They both went legal later.

Spotify too (allegedly) had bunch of pirated content to bootstrap the service. I guess the difference is that they (and YouTube) tried to pivot away from it, compared to Megaupload which seemed to have leaned into it instead.

Yeah, I remember in the early days, when I installed Spotify it would scan my computer for music and upload everything it found. I imagine this is basically how they bootstrapped

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

#708

Post by chx »

kobalsky wrote: post #175
chx wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I give him the benefit of the doubt since I'm not immune to propaganda and he was an obvious target for character assassination.

> Manning told the court that, during her interaction with WikiLeaks on IRC and Jabber, she developed a friendship with someone there, believed to be Julian Assange (although neither knew the other's name), which she said made her feel she could be herself

When this came out, everything about Assange was made clear. It's just textbook, take someone who is in a mental health crisis, pretend to be kind, you can do anything to them -- and Assange indeed did. Assange became famous, Chelsea went to prison.

When he decided to skip the materials damaging to Russia and published the materials on Clinton, that's when we knew his affiliation. We didn't need Pussy Riot to tell us -- although they sure did, just in case someone missed the obvious.

These are facts. This is not character assassination.

About him being rapist I was clear is not necessarily true. That might be character assassination indeed.

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

#709

Post by somastoma »

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…

Elon Musk comes to mind...

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

#710

Post by pembrook »

pgraf wrote: post #590
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…

> 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 […] While it may be true that they are the only ones able to do it effectively, there are some other countries with citizenship-based taxation. According to Wikipedia[0] these currently are: Hungary, Eritrea, Myanmar and Tajikistan Some other countri…

There's not a bank on earth (that isn't headquarted in said countries) that is voluntarily sharing information with Eritrea, Myanmar, etc.

I'm going to venture a wild guess: it may not be that difficult to hide assets from the short arms of the Tajikistani tax office.

So I don't think it's crazy to assume Americans are the only ones suffering under this policy in practice.

Post reply on HN