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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by dghlsakjg »

dangus wrote: post #676
zamubafoo wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming is not piracy though?

No, but piracy didn't stop being the #1 way to obtain digital music until streaming offered a convenient alternative. Streaming was essentially forced into existence by the wild rampancy and ease of music piracy. You really think if Spotify came along in 1998 that all the major record labels would agree to give them their entire catalog for $10 a month? Back then they were selling a single CD for around $20.

Every good stereo from the 80s and 90s had two tape-decks, one of which could record from any other signal source on the stereo. It wasn't so you could play two tapes over the speakers...

Piracy existed a LONG time before Napster hit the scene.

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

#822

Post by yellow_lead »

undergod wrote: post #496
yellow_lead wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation?

https://unherd.com/2023/11/is-sam-altman-compromising-us-sec...

So the original source is a random person on Blind?

Per the daily dot: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/sam-altman-china/

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

#823

Post by lolinder »

austinjp wrote: post #786
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…

What's going on here? A new account, attracting several comments about a controversial figure. I'm not convinced the parent comment is actually bringing much to the party, yet it's getting traffic. How do online communities discuss controversial subjects while ensuring good-faith participation?

HN has moderators that track things like that and can see where the upvotes are coming from and determine if the attention is genuine. If you're concerned, the correct approach is to email them about it, not post vague accusations of astroturfing.

From the guidelines:

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

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

#824

Post by jenadine »

liamwire wrote: post #814
rustcleaner wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add: you know with the stable-diffusion function, there are ranges of vectors whereby technically just conjuring them is 15 years federal and possessing them is 5 each. That is 20-25% of a lifetime in one, 7.5% in the other! You know how nuts that sounds to me as a mathematician?!

It’s not nuts when you stop being intentionally obtuse and speak plainly: yes, child abuse material can be represented by a variety of mathematical means, but it’s abhorrent nature makes it morally correct for those laws to exist.

No child is being abused when someone play with weights on a model. "Abhorrent nature" is very subjective and relative.

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

#825

Post by EasyMark »

duped wrote: post #576
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #218

The US seems to have this knack of sliding itself into this narrow gap between individuals they're idealistically pursuing and something worse. "If I could just slip in there, ooh, that's tight, yes, thank you, aah comfy, this feels like where I belong". In their desperate attempt to not lose a fight that's been going on for, what, 10 years? 15 years? They're increasingly looking like a child that cannot move on from…

You're looking at this through too narrow a lens, I think. The Government has a duty to protect domestic industry from foreign threats, and throughout history, that isn't reserved to state actors. Megaupload was a severe threat(*) to major American industries, and Kim Dotcom flagrantly ignored pressure from America to stop what it was doing. When that happens the Government gets to pick which of its heavy hammers to…

The only threat that movies/music industry face are divided attention and changing tastes, it’s not pirating. They don’t want to face the reality of their situation and improve their products; people like twitch, YouTube, social media, TikTok, etc just as much as going to the movies or watching cable television or listening to Spotify.

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

#827

Post by evilfred »

throwup238 wrote: post #493
gliiics wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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.

Snowden is a Russian operative, he isn't a real activist either

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

#828

Post by evilfred »

jrflowers wrote: post #745
gliiics wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Snowden quit working for the NSA and left the country, and Assange does not appear to be operating Wikileaks anymore. I would imagine that they would both agree that there comes a point where it makes sense to factor consequences into your choices and quit what you are doing.

Snowden fled for Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking. Now he spouts off their official propaganda.

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

#829

Post by riedel »

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…

I still do wonder also in the light of Julian Assange why in the age oft the Internet one always need to worried about extradiction. Why cannot New Zealand handle the crimes or maybe Germany where he is citizen. Also in the age of the internet a remote trial should even be possible and if the US is keen on it they can pay for the prison in New Zealand. Not saying I like him or what he did. But this always seems so political.

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

#830

Post by shafyy »

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…

I don't know, Kim Dotcom's Wikipedia page reads like the one of sociopath criminal that masquerades as a fighter of the people against "the man". But the dude has done some real illegal shit, beyond "just" illegal file sharing. Some examples, but go read his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

> Schmitz was arrested in March 1994 for selling stolen phone numbers and held in custody for a month. He was arrested again in 1998 on more hacking charges and convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud and 10 counts of data espionage. He was given a two-year suspended sentence; the judge of the case described Schmitz's actions as "youthful foolishness".

> In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump,resulting in a €1.5 million profit for Schmitz.

Also, that he used many of these things to enrich himself and live a lavish lifestyle does not exactly make him more likeable to me.

Post reply on HN