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

91–100 of 1001 posts

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

#91

Post by preaching5271 »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #72
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 think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. I'm far more concerned with the stuff that governments get away with, including infringement of the freedom to share information.

Totally fair point, but what can you do? This is how the world works. Fighting such beasts is pointless. You might tame them with lobby money, but no billionaire is interested. And we're now talking about the human spirit that cannot be chained, as also seen in Pirate Bay or Snowden. Sure, people do need heroes and hope from time to time. But I have become less romantic over the years, and more careful.

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

#92

Post by phyalow »

moralestapia wrote: post #30

Sad news. I don't really know if there's more than the file sharing thing behind this, but the US is cracking down too hard on this guy. Seems unfair, tbh. The raid at his NZ home was already taking it too far, IMO. I do not think he's a criminal. A big (massive, maybe) fine should have been more than enough.

I disagree, he has engaged in a deliberate media/public personality building campaign over the last 12 years to make the public sympathetic to him and his plight.

>>I do not think he's a criminal "He was arrested in 1994 for trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers. He was convicted on eleven charges of computer fraud, ten charges of data espionage and various other charges in 1998 that he served a two-year suspended sentence for.[7] In 2003, he was deported to Germany where he pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and after five months in jail awaiting trial he received another 20 months suspended sentence" (From Wiki)

>>The raid at his NZ home was already taking it too far, IMO. Yeah it was over the top, but he had firearms on the property and bodygaurds....

I'm with you that he should have just been fined, but he made a tremendous amount of money very deliberately (despite his protestations) trafficking illeagaly in Warez, I geniunely think the US is right to go after and nail him.

As a New Zealander, our government should be far more judicous about who it grants visa's to - he should have prima facae been refused his original visa on the basis of his prior convictions (I am sure there is a good story about why this was (incorrectly) overlooked by NZ officials). This ultimately is not a problem of New Zealands government/judicial system making, they have very fairly given Kim every chance to appeal and hear his side of the story - whilst he engages in games of attempted political manipulation for his own aim. The chickens must come home to roost at some point.

IMO I dont think Kim deserves the publics sympathy, the shield of New Zealand residency or that he is a good faith operator.

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

#93

Post by diggan »

immibis wrote: post #76
diggan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a owner of a file-hosting platform face the possibility of being extradited from their resident country to the US because they (allegedly) ignored DMCA takedown requests, it does seem like it could be of interest to many of us here. Signed, not a German.

DMCA which is not even a law in New Zealand, or indeed in most countries. If the US can extradite someone for ignoring DMCA takedowns, why couldn't Russia extradite someone for ignoring Russian censorship takedowns?

> why couldn't Russia extradite someone for ignoring Russian censorship takedowns

They can, in countries that have entered into extradition treaties with Russia. That's how treaties work.

In this case, the courts seem to think Dotcom was breaking both US and New Zealand law, and in the treaty New Zealand has with the US, they've agreed that someone could be extradited in those cases.

If Dotcom wasn't found to be breaking New Zealand law but only US law, it seems he wouldn't have been extradited.

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

#94

Post by timmg »

tedk-42 wrote: post #21

As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. With some 'diplomacy', Julian Assange was brought home after near 15 years fighting for BS extradition charges. The news and politicians in Australia follow almost lock step with whatever our US overlords allow us to say. It's been more of a thing lately with them trying to secure the pacific away from China's sphere of influence and the biggest 'dumb…

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

Not an expert, but my guess is that there is (probably valid) concern about China. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

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

#95

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

earnesti wrote: post #64
popcalc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. "Two weeks later on 20 January, Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk were arrested in Coatesville, New Zealand by the New Zealand Police, in an armed raid on Dotcom's house involving 76 officers and two helicopters. Seized assets included eighteen luxury cars, large TVs, works of art and US$175 million in cash. Dotcom's bank accounts were frozen, denying him access to 64 bank accounts wor…

The guy has a lot of money, so therefore he is more guilty than normal men?

The guy has a lot of money, so therefore it’s very tedious when people characterize him as a smol bean who just wanted to help people share their data. It’s a smokescreen for the real position (which I recognize some people do legitimately hold) that copying and selling movies without compensating the people who made them is a legitimate business model and it’s OK to make lots of money doing it.

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

#96

Post by popcalc »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #77
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish people wouldn't cheer when criminals evade accountability.

File sharing is not a crime. IP holder damages should take in consideration what the actual buying power of pirates is, not just multiply downloads by dvd costs, and copyright laws need a huge reform. He's a modern day robin hood, people would prefer him to win over eg. disney... and disney is not doing itself a favour these days :)

Sharing CSAM definitely is a crime. Nuances exist.

>He's a modern day robin hood

He's run or partnered on multiple pump-and-dumps for the better part of 30 years, some of which capitalized on his fanbase.

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

#97

Post by philippejara »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #49
GrumpyNl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First we have to agree on whats a criminal.

Sure. I propose...a trial.

Is that going to be a trial by the laws of the land he resides in and not to a foreign country that the defendant is not a citizen nor a resident nor operates out of and that refuses to guarantee the same protections under the law to a non-citizen compared to a citizen[1]?

This same foreign country who passed laws for invading the hague if they came under trial for crimes in the ICC.

[1]: See assange's bid for first amendment's guarantees when the same foreign country was trying to extradite and "trial" him

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

#98

Post by LeifCarrotson »

rout39574 wrote: post #42
popcalc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. "Two weeks later on 20 January, Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk were arrested in Coatesville, New Zealand by the New Zealand Police, in an armed raid on Dotcom's house involving 76 officers and two helicopters. Seized assets included eighteen luxury cars, large TVs, works of art and US$175 million in cash. Dotcom's bank accounts were frozen, denying him access to 64 bank accounts wor…

If that logic sounds sketch when the police take $10K from a man going to buy a car, it should also be sketch when you add zeros somewhere else. In general "That's really unusual behavior" shouldn't be enough to forfeit a fortune.

A man's labor and intelligence can eventually earn him $10k to buy a car. Over a long career, one might eventually amass a fortune on the order of $1M. Kim might (hypothetically) have an IQ of 150 and be willing to work punishingly long hours where our analogous car buyer went home to be with his family. But it's completely farcical to state that he's 10,000 times smarter or harder-working than a baseline human, that's absurd - it's far more reasonable to assume that he assigned the value of the efforts of others to himself, stole, manipulated, scammed, or otherwise acquired that $175M illegitimately. And that's ignoring that it was $175M in cash, as if it was pocket change to him; there's no good explanation for him to have that much in investments much less in physical money lying around.

I feel the same about Musk's or Bezos' mind-boggling fortunes; Jeff isn't making $2M per hour while his exhausted employees make $16/hr (while peeing in bottles on a breakneck pace through the warehouse) because he's foregoing all human needs and limits, packing boxes at hypersonic speeds for 60 hours per day without rest. Obviously, he makes $2M/hr because their labor is worth $25/hr or more and he diverts the excess for himself.

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

#99

Post by enriquec »

snapcaster wrote: post #84
thor-rodrigues wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

people used to be embarrassed in forums like this about being so pro-government. Tech has been completely captured by normies

yup, what a bummer

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

#100

Post by queuebert »

immibis wrote: post #76
diggan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a owner of a file-hosting platform face the possibility of being extradited from their resident country to the US because they (allegedly) ignored DMCA takedown requests, it does seem like it could be of interest to many of us here. Signed, not a German.

DMCA which is not even a law in New Zealand, or indeed in most countries. If the US can extradite someone for ignoring DMCA takedowns, why couldn't Russia extradite someone for ignoring Russian censorship takedowns?

They probably could if the host country agreed to it. It's just a matter of diplomacy. The US certainly doesn't have any special status, just better relationships, especially with the English-speaking countries.
Post reply on HN