Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 98 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#81

Post by CodeMage »

briandear wrote: post #56
kiba wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. It reeks of America strong-arming other countries to pursue an agenda that is in only its best interests. It is made worse by the high-level collusion between the government and Hollywood. Best interest of the United States? What do the US gain from this other than getting votes for those elected in office and pleasing an insignificant and corrupt industry we ca…

You can blame Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem. Follow the money and vote the opposite. Their contributions aren't secret. We the people have access to the contribution records, yet people continue to vote for the people gettin…

I'm sorry if my question is naive, but it's been bothering me for a while now: why doesn't anyone consider the lobbying itself to be the root problem? I'm not from the US, so I haven't grown up with that system and to me it sounds like legalized corruption.

The only reason I can come up with for allowing lobbying is the same reason why people want to legalize drugs: illegal corruption would be a lot worse than legalized corruption. Is that it? Or am I missing something?

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#82

Post by danielweber »

CodeMage wrote: post #81
briandear wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can blame Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem. Follow the money and vote the opposite. Their contributions aren't secret. We the people have access to the contribution records, yet people continue to vote for the people gettin…

I'm sorry if my question is naive, but it's been bothering me for a while now: why doesn't anyone consider the lobbying itself to be the root problem? I'm not from the US, so I haven't grown up with that system and to me it sounds like legalized corruption. The only reason I can come up with for allowing lobbying is the same reason why people want to legalize drugs: illegal corruption would be a lot worse than legali…

For most people it's: "Lobbying is bad when it's for things I don't like."

The ability to petition the government was so important to the Founders that they wrote it into the First Amendment. (Madison, among others, was hostile to the Bill Of Rights because he thought those were things that were obviously not allowed to government, and that delineating them would cause people to think that the Constitution was a list of the people's rights instead of a list of the powers granted to the government.)

In the modern day, though, the government has so much power and influence over people's lives that it becomes necessary to spend a significant fraction of your attention -- or hire someone else to do it -- to government to make sure they aren't about to legislate you out of existence. See Uber as an example.

Influencing government is usually a zero-sum game that people are forced to play. It would be swell if "the other side" unilaterally disarmed so we could disarm, too, but they don't trust us any more than we trust them.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#83

Post by jlgreco »

NonEUCitizen wrote: post #72
res0nat0r wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously haven't read the indictment. They weren't totally ignoring the takedown requests yes, but they were knowingly assisting and profiting off content they knew was copyrighted.

ALLEGEDLY

Innocent until accused it seems.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#84

Post by jlgreco »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #80
wtvanhest wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this is down voted, it is a very legitimate point.

Not really. If you like it as a comedic aside then fine but it's not a valid point in any sense beyond that. Assange currently has the run of the Ecuadorian embassy in London (roughly the size of a large flat) but the minute he leaves that (for instance to try to get to an airport) he'll be arrested for breaching his bail terms. Even if he's granted asylum (relatively unlikely) that won't change unless they make him…

What if they put a big sticker on him that labels him as a diplomatic package?

I'm only half joking. ;)

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#85

Post by rvschuilenburg »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #80
wtvanhest wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this is down voted, it is a very legitimate point.

Not really. If you like it as a comedic aside then fine but it's not a valid point in any sense beyond that. Assange currently has the run of the Ecuadorian embassy in London (roughly the size of a large flat) but the minute he leaves that (for instance to try to get to an airport) he'll be arrested for breaching his bail terms. Even if he's granted asylum (relatively unlikely) that won't change unless they make him…

From what i've always understood, if he is transported in a car together with a diplomat, the UK police are still not allowed to stop them. So he himself doesn't have to be a diplomat.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#86

Post by danielweber »

jlgreco wrote: post #54
powertower wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. MU was the hub of piracy on the net. And from the figures posted, netted 400 million dollars from it. It's not something that was going to be ignored, even with a legitimate upload service being offered, because the primary monetary driver for that company was tricking and/or getting people to sign-up when visiting a page to d/l pirated content. All the US gov…

He may in reality be guilty as hell (legally of course he is not yet...) but that doesn't mean the law can take shortcuts. What is up with the illegal search warrants? That is the sort of stuff that people should be concerned about. If they were going about this in a reasonable fashion I'm sure the vast majority of us would not be concerned. Do it properly, and if he is found guilty then so be it, and if he is innoce…

Yes. The government can railroad guilty people as well as innocent people.

In fact, it can be worse when they railroad guilty people, because the next time the government cuts corners, people will just think "oh, it's okay, the government wouldn't bring a case unless they had proof. Remember the last guy who claimed that? He was guilty, too."

Dotcom is completely guilty AFAIC, but the state still has the burden to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#87

Post by jlgreco »

danielweber wrote: post #86
jlgreco wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may in reality be guilty as hell (legally of course he is not yet...) but that doesn't mean the law can take shortcuts. What is up with the illegal search warrants? That is the sort of stuff that people should be concerned about. If they were going about this in a reasonable fashion I'm sure the vast majority of us would not be concerned. Do it properly, and if he is found guilty then so be it, and if he is innoce…

Yes. The government can railroad guilty people as well as innocent people. In fact, it can be worse when they railroad guilty people, because the next time the government cuts corners, people will just think "oh, it's okay, the government wouldn't bring a case unless they had proof. Remember the last guy who claimed that? He was guilty, too." Dotcom is completely guilty AFAIC, but the state still has the burden to pr…

Exactly right. Railroading obviously guilty people concerns me greatly. That's how mob justice works, and it is the reason mob justice is generally seen as unappealing.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#88

Post by danielweber »

NonEUCitizen wrote: post #72
res0nat0r wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously haven't read the indictment. They weren't totally ignoring the takedown requests yes, but they were knowingly assisting and profiting off content they knew was copyrighted.

ALLEGEDLY

If you are saying the government has not yet proved it in a court of law -- as it is required to do -- you are correct.

If you are saying that Dotcom wasn't explicitly aware of copyrighted materials being uploaded, didn't know people were uploading copyright materials, and didn't set up reward programs for people who uploaded the most pirated materials, then you are very naive.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#89

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

rvschuilenburg wrote: post #85
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. If you like it as a comedic aside then fine but it's not a valid point in any sense beyond that. Assange currently has the run of the Ecuadorian embassy in London (roughly the size of a large flat) but the minute he leaves that (for instance to try to get to an airport) he'll be arrested for breaching his bail terms. Even if he's granted asylum (relatively unlikely) that won't change unless they make him…

From what i've always understood, if he is transported in a car together with a diplomat, the UK police are still not allowed to stop them. So he himself doesn't have to be a diplomat.

The Ecuadorian embassy isn't a huge building with it's own garage, it's a flat on the first floor. If you can get a car in to a first floor flat you may have a plan.

Even if that weren't the case he's got to get out of the car to get into the plane at which point he's once again on British soil and can be arrested.

Plus really, how much effort at the Ecuadorian government going to go to to piss off the British, American and Swedish governments? What they're doing now is following procedure, what you're proposing would be far more active.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#90

Post by cjensen »

ktizo wrote: post #43
cjensen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Lots of people get their assets frozen. They don't get to make demands as a precondition of submitting to justice. Asking for special conditions that are never granted can only mean one of two things: either he is utterly ignorant of how law works or he is just trolling for more attention. I choose to view him as non-ignorant, but since my view is not fawning, apparently I get a massive karma downgrade. I'll liv…

Well, actually he has precedent in his favour. CFTC v. Walsh: District Court Releases Funds Frozen in Civil Case to Pay for Attorney in Parallel Criminal Case: http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/comment-cftc-v-wal... Also, how else do you get to have funds released other than through petition? And he has already submitted to the justice system, otherwise he wouldn't be turning up in court.

I don't disagree with what you said. But the topic was in regard to someone refusing to submit to justice unless their conditions were met. The point is, he must submit to the court before the court can grant his petition.
Post reply on HN