Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom Faces Jail At Bail Hearing

An anonymous reader writes A bail hearing will resume on Monday at which New Zealand authorities will claim one-time internet tycoon Kim Dotcom is a flight risk and should be sent to jail to await his extradition hearing. The Crown quizzed Dotcom on his finances, contacts and even his online gaming habits this week. Authorities argued he had breached bail conditions by trying to sell a Rolls Royce and having contact with former Megaupload colleagues. Dotcom is wanted in the US on criminal copyright violation and racketeering charges.

166 comments

  1. So sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Son, I am disappoint.

    1. Re:So sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought New Zealand was where you got sent IF you committed crimes, not where you hide from prosecution.
      If you are hiding, wouldn't Brazil be a lot more hip place to be? 20,000 Nazis can't be wrong!
      Snowden seems to like Russia, and with all those Russian sluts w/not a shred of modesty or moral compass.
      China has been known to trade for exchange of technology, but Clouds are kind of common now.
      N.Korea is out of the question for anyone but masochists and liberals. Thailand is far too cooperative with extradition now.
      I could've swore New Zealand was just Australias landfill and waste dump, when did people decide to live there? Isn't that where they dump defective politicians? Broken toys? The terminally flatulent? Retired Love Boat actors? It can't be a good choice to ex-pat any way you look at it.

    2. Re:So sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought New Zealand was where you got sent IF you committed crimes, not where you hide from prosecution.

      That's Australia

    3. Re:So sad by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      If you are hiding, wouldn't Brazil be a lot more hip place to be? 20,000 Nazis can't be wrong!.

      Of course the preferred place of immigration for these bastards was the good old USA, where thousands went. And where, if you were discovered, you just had to move abroad meanwhile receiving all you social security payments.

    4. Re:So sad by doccus · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US was only the preferred place of immigration for nazis if they worked for the gov't in high security positions, such as the US missile program etc. Good 'ol Nazi know-how for the American war machine...

  2. authorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the same authorities who are on hook for damages if doesn't get sent to USA? and probably on misconduct shit even if he does get sent.

    where would he take a flight to anyways? bahamas?

    and wtf - why should he be isolated from former megaupload workers, seems like a proper defense wouldn't be possible without coordinating with them somewhat.

    1. Re:authorities? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      obviously, they are unindicted co-conspirators.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:authorities? by bytesex · · Score: 2

      It's much worse. If the NZ authorities fail to turn over Kim DC, the filming of the next Tolkien epic won't be allowed there.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    3. Re:authorities? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      NZ, please flip the United States the Bird!

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:authorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, you got it all wrong. Hollywood recreated NZ on a backlot, THEN they did the Hobbit, THERE!
      It just looks better for P.R. to pretend they did it all natural like. Kind of like the moon landings.

    5. Re:authorities? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Laydeeeeeeez and Gentlemen, please direct your attention to the center ring, where you will see an amazing feat of avian dexterity and balance; All the way from New Zealand; The Flipping Kiwis!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    6. Re:authorities? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      next up: jokes about flaming Tasmanians and CM Burns' "WTF" facepalm at the camera...

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:authorities? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I think those kind of restrictions are common in conspiracy cases. This all sounds like standard procedure except for the "popular among nerds" and "rich guy" angles.

    8. Re:authorities? by Quasimodem · · Score: 1

      A Kiwi.

    9. Re:authorities? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      After the Hobbit movies, I'm hoping there won't be another Tolkien epic. Not that there's much more good Tolkien to draw from, anyway. The Silmarillion was about as entertaining as a book on Greek mythology.

    10. Re:authorities? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      To late the woolly jumbuck of New Zealand politics has already rudely had it's hind legs dropped into the front of the US government's gumboots and is now if for the ride of it's life, even as New Zealanders crow about the advantages of the Russia trade sanctions against Australia as a result of the current Australia government being a blatant puppet of the US government. Ahh yes, the US government the friend you have when you want to be democratised to death.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. Not a fan but come on by Mistakill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a kiwi, I'm not a fan but this is ridiculous... hes been charged with no New Zealand crime... the search warrant was ruled by a New Zealand judge to be illegal and excessive. He's not exactly an average looking person... he would stand out

    1. Re:Not a fan but come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American I agree.

    2. Re:Not a fan but come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've never been to Alabama, apparently.

  4. Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He can't sell a car? He can't talk to people to help him get money? His bail terms must be to sit and do nothing until they get him in jail permanently. He's screwed, and it shows the law means nothing if they have a grudge against you.

    1. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The car was part of the assets under seizure, so no he can't sell it. compared to what most people go through in such a criminal trial where the assets may be considered illicit gains he has actually been treated unbelievably well. He was able to keep his money to spend on his legal bills as well as a political campaign, gambling and even a ridiculous music venture and a monthly rent bill that was $80,000. seriously that is nearly a million a year he was spending on rent.

    2. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The car was part of the assets under seizure,

      Seizure again without due process on the theory that he is a "fugitive from justice in the United States". Being a fugitive is somewhat of a stretch considering that he is a German citizen and has never been in the United States to start with. So they are are seizing and freezing all his assets because he is a "fugitive" from the U.S., and the U.S. justice system is wired in a way that you only get to see justice (or the closest approximation to it you will see there) if you can fork over lots of cash for your defense.

      Don't take me wrong: I consider Kim DotCom a douchebag, but compared to the douchebagginess of the U.S. prosecution and its New Zealand lapdogs as shown here he is a cute little puppy.

    3. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, it's amazingly hard to pick sides in this battle. Is there any way that we could make both of them lose?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A former Brazilian Politician (of the 50s IIRC), once said:

      "For friends, everything; for enemies, the Law."

      The Law is a good instrument to promote all kinds of injustice. Can't really say anything else, because the present case proves there's no Freedom of Expression. Not in the US and neither overseas. I hope I can still say that...

    5. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      douchebag or not, he is still entitled to due process. Is he really that much more of a scumbag than the guards at Auschwitz that he doesn't deserve a fair trial that they got? What, actually, is he accused of that's so heinous, so wrong, that the Great United States Justice Machine wants him locked up in one of their holes forever throw away the key fuck your trial fuck due process? Dotcom is due an apology, not a fucking court date.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    6. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well yes, both teams of lawyers will work to ensure that justice is done. Justice to their various bank accounts, that is.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No matter how much of a douche he is, being a douche isn't a criminal offence or worthy of being locked up and deprived of your assets because America says so.

      Defending freedom often means defending scoundrels, but it's a price worth paying.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      Yup a "fugitive" as in fighting extradition. Those pesky assets might let him mount a functional defense.

      I'm sorry but seizing somebody assets so he can no longer mount a defense is entirely contrary to fair or just.

      Because another country will not extradite does not make him a fugitive. Nations have these sovereign rights for a reason so that we do not have some world law, so that they may pick what is right and wrong and to what extent internally.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    9. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Citizenship is irrelevant to the question of whether he broke US laws. Like every other country, US laws apply to actions and jurisdiction, not to citizenship. The important question is whether he acted in a way that broke US criminal copyright laws. The FBI has convinced the NZ government that they have a substantial case so they executed arrest and search warrants against him and he has strangely been able to drag out extradition procedures against him for more than two years.

    10. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by TropicalCoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The story at Ars has a video of an candid interview Kim Dotcom did with the press a couple of days ago... http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

      I listened to the whole thing, and found it very interesting. Kim Dotcom gave fairly straight forward responses, and came off for me as an intelligent, not so bad guy. For sure it would be easy for us to envy his wealth, but IMHO he came about it by exploiting loopholes in the law, not by breaking the law.

      Instead of pursuing Kim Dotcom to the ends of the earth (Sorry, NZers), why doesn't the US DOJ expend their effort prosecuting the crooks on Wall Street whole defrauded the whole world of a trillion dollars selling those bogus Credit Default Swaps that led up to the crash of 2008? Not one has been prosecuted, nor will they ever be.

    11. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by gweihir · · Score: 1

      "The law" generally means nothing. It is just a fiction propped up by propaganda to somehow have a connection to right and wrong, but it does not. IT also has zero effect of preventing or reducing crime, that is the other Big Lie. People do respect others because they want to, not because some law tells them to. If you do not believe that, just think about the countless possibility to do utter evil, yet not break the law at all or be shielded from the consequences.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Accurate. Most people are too stupid to see it though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good. Then north korea or some other shithole should be able to extradite YOU and lock you in a cell over something on the internet. Fuck the US and its "laws".

    14. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Kim Dotcom's wealth is as legitimate as Bill Gates' wealth. Both ignored and manipulated that law for profit.

      --
      Good-bye
    15. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. the 'law' is what prevents individuals and groups from attempting to gain control of 'monopoly on violence'. Without the law you would be some warlord's bitch or dead. Be grateful for 'law'

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Filter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have almost certainly broken sharia law of many nations, how would you feel about defending your self there. Should you be extradited? Should your assets be frozen so that you have no chance of financing a reasonable defence?

      --

      "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

    17. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I was discussing the way laws actually work. What are YOU talking about?

    18. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're talking about the ways laws actually work. (Jurisdiction)

    19. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I was discussing the way laws actually work. What are YOU talking about?

      Why are you being so hostile? Fitter's point stands. Merely existing as a non-Muslim in accordance with the harshest varieties of Sharia law, which takes the stance that all of God's creation is their jurisdiction, you could be charged with crimes punishable by beheading (among worse things) merely on the suspicion of guilt.

      Would you find your assets being seized and extradited to defend yourself against such criminal accusations an acceptable outcome? You broke their law in their jurisdiction, therefore that is precisely what should be done based on your "logic" alone.

    20. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The idea of seizure or more precisely freezing his assets in this case is to prevent him disposing of them BEFORE due process has taken place, otherwise there is noting stopping him selling everything and funneling into offshore account or flushing it on blow and hookers.

    21. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money's on his supposed separation being part of a scheme to hide his assets, just as with turning over his new businesses to a family trust in which he is no longer beneficiary. His old law firm may even have recommended seeking new counsel to lend credence to this - who knows? He's "broke" by his own design.

    22. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      When the result depends on assets, it is neither "fair or just"

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Anarchy is not the answer to injustice.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    24. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You forgot one key point - there's no extradition if the crime isn't a crime in the host country. Until the US enacts sharia law (and has an extradition treaty with those countries) it just ain't gonna happen. So I will continue to violate sharia law with impunity.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    25. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of pursuing Kim Dotcom to the ends of the earth (Sorry, NZers)...

      After reading about what Americans got up to on Friday, I'm glad I live at this end of the earth :P

    26. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if such countries that exist had extradition laws where Sharia law was accepted then maybe this would be a problem. You may as well claim he broke Neptunes laws, they are just as relevant to the discussion.

    27. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Dotcom is a professional con man, or at least he was in Germany before he moved to NZ. Of course he comes across as "fairly straightforward", this is what he does for a living. As for "not by breaking the law", the German courts would disagree with you, as would the thousands of moderately-innocent Germans he defrauded (in order to get rich in the first place, thus getting the money to found MegaUpload and become the consummate publicity whore he is today).

      Yes, his rights have been violated in NZ, and someone - ideally John Key - should pay for that. But he's also done a lot wrong in the relatively short time he's been here. He's formed a political party, with disastrous results: every NZ politician he's ever met with has come out smelling of shit, even the squeaky-clean Greens. He's tried to influence the outcome of an election, and only succeeded in strengthening his enemy. He still, to this day, owes millions of dollars to relatively-innocent Kiwi tradespeople who've done sundry jobs about his home and grounds - bills that he just goes on ignoring, claiming he's broke even as he takes more helicopter trips around the country.

      Campaign for him if you must. Just don't let him owe you money.

    28. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

      The car was part of the assets under seizure, so no he can't sell it. compared to what most people go through in such a criminal trial where the assets may be considered illicit gains he has actually been treated unbelievably well. He was able to keep his money to spend on his legal bills as well as a political campaign, gambling and even a ridiculous music venture and a monthly rent bill that was $80,000. seriously that is nearly a million a year he was spending on rent.

      I thought Kim Dotcom was broke and not even able to pay his lawyers? http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30209067

    29. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There is the rare moment when the legal system has been bullshitted by an individual long and often enough that I can only say that turnabout is fair game. Just like when Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion (let's be honest, that was the crime he was convicted of but not the reason why he was convicted). Some individuals are very adept at evading the legal system, and while the legal system gets abused far too often, sometimes it gets really hard to consider it wrong. Was it wrong to jail Capone, albeit on a pretty much constructed reason?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't forget that point, the post he replied to was arguing that because US law does not set any limits at the US borders, it's still valid in NZ, and thus Dotcom should be extradited anyway.

      Sharia, being law given from God, also sets no limits as to where it applies, so the exact same argument works equally for both cases.

    31. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you have no right to someone else's possessions WITHOUT DUE PROCESS HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT.

      Yet here you are bumbling about how they need to sieze assets BEFORE due process happens, "in case it turns out he owes those assets back".

      Sorry, you don't get pre-emptive justice. That's called "vigilantism". Even when a government does it (especially if the government has no claim to your citizenship, as in this case).

    32. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Capone was imprisoned on a constructed reason? He did not declare all of his income on his tax returns, and the authorities were able to prove this, and demonstrate that he did that with intent to defraud. Since he was a well-known crime kingpin, if his tax returns indicated low income he was a natural target for auditing and investigation.

      The lesson here is that, if you're going to commit profitable crime, declare enough of it on you income taxes that they won't be able to prove you didn't declare all of it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a misunderstanding of due process. Dotcom has been charged with a crime (what he's accused of is criminal both in the US and New Zealand), and this is part of the legal process. AFAICT, his property is being restricted, not disposed of, and he will have free use of it if acquitted. (Were this part of the odious civil asset forfeiture that is popular in the US, I'd agree with you.)

      Due process doesn't mean absolutely nothing bad happens to him unless and until he is convicted. It means that a certain process is followed. That you don't like the process doesn't make it illegal.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm not clear on his alleged crimes. He is accused of commercial copyright infringement right? If so then being a douche is irrelevant; he's simply an accused criminal living in a country with an extradition treaty to the country who wants to prosecute him. He is deprived of his assets not because America says so but because New Zealand says so in the form of their treaty with America.

  5. Keep in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The evidence for extradition is tainted because it was obtained by illegal surveillance by the NZ spy agency against a New Zealand resident, they also promptly handed the evidence over the US without court approval, so its all very dodgy legally at this point. Even before we consider if conspiracy to commit a copyright infringement is an actual legal thing, let alone an extraditable legal thing.

    So they're trying for a shit throwing exercise to see if they can throw enough shit and see if any of it can stick.

    1. Re: Keep in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It will stick. Might makes right, and money is might. Kim Dotcom should rename himself Kim Deadman.

    2. Re:Keep in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't worry. We're about to fix the law to get rid of pesky "illegal surveillance" problems with the new bill currently before parliament. 48 hours of surveillance without a warrant. I wonder how many times the 48 hour period will begin just in the nick of time to catch something that would have previously been illegal surveilance? There will no longer be a disincentive to carry out illegal surveillance because everything will be admissible within the right 48 hour window.

  6. Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You (insert your name here) are hereby accused of (unstated) crime. It doesn't matter what, but it was serious enough to threaten (insert multinational corporation here) profits.

    Your plea is irrelevant. Your evidence is irrelevant. Your refutation of our evidence is irrelevant. Precedent is irrelevant.

    Go directly to jail. Forfeit all assets. And get your mind right.

    1. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revolution needed.

    2. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... this is someone that belongs in a jail cell ...

      How nice to have a verdict without a trial. 'Presumption of innocence' is a legal fiction created to counteract the thuggery of the police. Once someone says that fiction doesn't count, the accused cannot win. Because the police no longer have to prove they're correct.

      ... being clever to get around the law ...

      So the cops are allowed to be criminals too? Approving police thuggery never helps.

      ... who is actually guilty as hell ...

      Then the police can find evidence the old-fashioned way.

    3. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only the courts that have to do the innocent until proven guilty thing. The public, the police and anyone else is free to make there own decision.

    4. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First they came for the scumbags ... but I'd already done a Godwin so I didn't care.
      Nobody should be above or below the law, even scumbags. He doesn't belong in a jail cell until they charge him with something that could put you or me in a jail cell.

    5. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, i mean it worked in Canada, we have no crime that is worthy of a death sentence; yet cops (experienced or not) can deliver one without trial jury or (seemingly [ 8 cops jailed in 50 years lol]) consequence. captcha chaotic ... nicee

    6. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      in all fairness - bollocks. It doesn't matter how much of a cunt you are, or what you're accused of, when someone makes a claim against you the burden is upon them to prove their case, not on you to prove a negative. This is the entire basis of Western justice: innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. I could drive around with an image of a machine gun on my number plate, does that mean I'm off to shoot up a school? Fuck no, it means I know a little about guns. But in YOUR mind, I'm a crazed psychopath who should be in jail for something I've not even done! Who's the psychopath?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      presumption of innoccence is a maxim that has existed for over twelve hundred years, predating the police by CENTURIES.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    8. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      He's guilty of absolutely nothing, and he's actually fairly nice guy. But none of this will help him ...

    9. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      He's guilty of absolutely nothing, and he's actually fairly nice guy.

      Oh I'm sure his victims felt just the same, they'd agree he's a charismatic and likeable chap. I imagine it was all very buddy-buddy until he walked away with their money.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    10. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Whereas, on Earth, pleas, evidence, and precedent are relevant.

      There is strong reason to believe Dotcom committed acts in the US that are crimes both in the US and in New Zealand. So far, he is limited in what he can do with his property (this is not forfeiture), and there's a proposal to imprison him until this hearing is over. Dotcom has an opportunity to argue that the imprisonment is unnecessary, and last I heard he was in fact not jailed.

      The New Zealand authorities committed some acts in regard to the case that are apparently illegal, and Dotcom can bring those up whenever relevant. It may lead to evidence against him being excluded from the courtroom, and that might allow him to avoid conviction for things that he may actually have done.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Moral of the story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't mess with Murica'. We like our free money.

    1. Re:Moral of the story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where you gettin all that free money, Tex? Obamacare fraud?

    2. Re:Moral of the story is... by penix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where you gettin all that free money, Tex? Obamacare fraud?

      No... He works for Bank of America...

      which brings this back on topic...

      Here you have someone whose offense had zero effect on the economy yet those who brought the world to its knees got billions and never even saw the insde of a court room much less a jail.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    3. Re:Moral of the story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And who went to jail for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Try transferring someone else's money to your account without permission for a while. Can you avoid jail if you pay it back with interest?

      How about the drug money laundering stuff by banks (Wachovia, HSBC etc). Some say it's hard to be clear on the line of responsibility, so you don't know who to jail. I say it starts to get a lot clearer if people actually start going to jail rather than getting big bonuses. After all if YOU were about to go to jail for laundering money I'm pretty sure you'd magically find the email/memo where your boss approved/ordered it. If you don't, you're an idiot and should go to jail. And your colleagues will start requiring enough paper for their butts that bosses might be less inclined to do such stuff.

    4. Re:Moral of the story is... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      HDBC is a poor example, they were founded to handle funds generated off the opium trade, in fact their biggest cashflow portion is still the illicit drugs trade in China and the Far East.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    5. Re:Moral of the story is... by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have always said fining a corporation does no good since it simply becomes a "cost of doing business" usually with their customers footing the fine.

      Want to really punish a corporation? Revoke or suspend their corporate charter. Remove the protections they, and more importantly, their shareholder's enjoy. Let them feel the pain when a company does something illegal. They want to be thought of as a person, then let's treat them as a person and remove the entitlements they receive by being corporations.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    6. Re:Moral of the story is... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      HSBC even.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:Moral of the story is... by Tom · · Score: 1

      yet those who brought the world to its knees got billions and never even saw the insde of a court room much less a jail.

      True, but one wrong doesn't make another one right. And I personally wouldn't want to live in a world with a "we don't prosecute robbery as long as there are murders" policy.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Moral of the story is... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In a competitive market, the corporation can't pass extra costs on to the customer, because they'd be pricing themselves out of the market. Even in a monopoly, there's a certain price (determined by the demand curve) that gives the monopolist maximum revenue, although it's higher than the price in a competitive market. If the corporation can make more money by raising prices or lowering costs, to make a reserve for fines, they're currently leaving money on the table.

      Unless the fines are incurred per customer or per transaction or something like that, they do not affect the optimum pricing.

      This of course doesn't stop companies from lying in order to raise prices to a new optimum price without taking a PR hit.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. No Cash Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do not htink it is a coincidence that he is low on cash and now seems to be at risk of going to jail.

    No money=Guilty.

    Lots of money=Not Guilty, or at least it was till this point at question whether he was or not.

    1. Re:No Cash Left by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Functionally no money=guilty but not in principle.

      The problem is that the system is so stacked against a person, that without money you will have an extremely difficult time defending yourself. In modern times, the justice system has been changed to the "just us" system. This is likely even more true in other countries that do not have the supposed safeguards like the USA claims to have.

      But this is not a hearing to determine if he is guilty or innocent, just if he broke the terms of his bail. You could attach a guilty or innocent aspect to that but there are no criminal penalties or charges of breaking laws involved.

    2. Re:No Cash Left by mr_exit · · Score: 2

      The guy has got buckets of money. He just managed to spend $4.5M on a splashy political campaign in NZ. In a country of 4 million people that's a very expensive campaign.

      He's been spending mountains of money on lawyers to delay and delay his extradition hearings. Anyone without his resources would have been deported by now, not living in a mansion on bail.

      --

      -------
      Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
    3. Re: No Cash Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had, not has.

    4. Re: No Cash Left by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Did he really spend his last millions on the political campaign, and not save any for legal costs? That seems unlikely / not very smart.

    5. Re:No Cash Left by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      In modern times, the justice system has been changed to the "just us" system. This is likely even more true in other countries that do not have the supposed safeguards like the USA claims to have.

      You were trying for +5 funny there, right?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:No Cash Left by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      He just managed to spend $4.5M on a splashy political campaign in NZ. In a country of 4 million people that's a very expensive campaign.

      That's barely over $1/person. Compare that the the $1 billion for Obama's campaign and $1 billion for Romney's campaign (and $7 billion total election expenses in 2012), and it makes KDC look like a cheap piker.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  9. Deportation next? by seoras · · Score: 2

    I thought that the recent revelation that his original NZ residency application failed to disclose a dangerous driving conviction left it open for him to be deported?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11350895

    So the whole "illegal" raid, dodgy handling of his arrest and application for his extradition could be a moot point now.
    He's seriously pissed off the NZ power's that be after the Internet-Mana, mud slinging, campaign in the recent election.
    That and putting John Key's mate, and ex-Mayor of Auckland, Banks in jail for failing to disclose Dotcom's donations fully.

    A man with few friends, no money and a lot of powerful enemy's.

  10. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'd be helpful if the summary reminded us why we should care w/o having to Google his name. Or even after Googling his name.

    1. Re:Who? by future+assassin · · Score: 2
      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  11. Re:Let's hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because rape is funny?

    You're fucked. Seek help.

  12. He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by raymorris · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You may notice he's not in jail. You may also notice all the evidence, including emails he wrote, is pretty much 100% showing he's guilty. Heck, he even had a personalized license plate made - GUILTY. He's bragging about it. The one and only difference between him and any other criminal caught on tape is that he "gave" you free shit (that wasn't his to give).

    1. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one and only difference between him and any other criminal caught on tape is that he "gave" you free shit (that wasn't his to give).

      He has something in common with at least one olde timey criminal then: Robin Hood.

    2. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The real issue here is the raid in the first place. The raiders should be on trial.

    3. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And if he was giving away all his ill gotten gains then I would support him instead of condemning him for the scumbag he is. At the moment he is little more than a Robber Baron, robbing from the rich to make himself richer.

    4. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      And what of the ruling National Party, then?

      The same party who, when sued for using an Eminem song without permission settled with the publishers rather than having their own houses raided, being held at gunpoint and having all their assets seized?

      Seems rather hypocritical, to me. But then, they are the big money, changing the nation's laws to suit American interests.

    5. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What e-mails? Those who were illegally confiscated by the U.S.? The same e-mails he claims were torn totally out of context? The same e-mails they're now denying him access to, because of... reasons?

      Being a scumbag and driving around in expensive cars with profane license plates doesn't make one a criminal. Up until now, the U.S. government and their kiwi henchmen look a whole lot more criminal than the guy they're trying to convict. More than two and a half years have passed since they shut this whole Megaupload down and did this big Hollywoodesque showoff at his mansion. Where is the due process in this?

    6. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      this is just the bail prior the extradition hearing, they're not near to the copyright trial yet.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the slight technicality that Kim Dotcom actually exists.

    8. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, the confiscated emails where he explicitly says they need to get more Hollywood movofies in order to make more money. That THE textbook example of criminal copyright infringement. Whether the seizure was the legal the courts will decide. We've seen the the emails, so we know that he intentionally committed another crime. Apparently you feel that you've benefited from this type of crime, so just be honest and say that. To pretend he didn't do the things he brags about doing is silly.

      > More than two and a half years have passed since they shut this whole Megaupload down and did this big Hollywoodesque showoff at his mansion. Where is the due process in this?

      I'm not quite following your complaint here. You are bothered that his team of lawyers has been given every opportunity to delay the hearing, over and over? You feel that due process requires that his motions for continuance and various prehearing motions be denied?

    9. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by X.25 · · Score: 1

      You may notice he's not in jail. You may also notice all the evidence, including emails he wrote, is pretty much 100% showing he's guilty. Heck, he even had a personalized license plate made - GUILTY. He's bragging about it. The one and only difference between him and any other criminal caught on tape is that he "gave" you free shit (that wasn't his to give).

      Do you realize that not a single thing that you wrote has any connection to reality?

      Of course you do. That's why you write it.

    10. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whether the seizure was the legal the courts will decide.

      NZ courts have already decided that the seizure was illegal.

      Oh wait, you mean the US of A courts, the ones who claim to have legal authority over a German living in New Zealand whose company was registered in Hong Kong?

    11. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US had the emails in the indictment prior to the raid. He's being denied access to personal drives that were seized in the raid.

      You do realize that MegaUpload was operating on a .com domain, on servers inside the US, and used US bank accounts, right?

      And you do realize that the two and a half year delay was at Kim Dotcom's own request. He used his lawyers to delay and extend the proceedings.

    12. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... little more than a Robber Baron, robbing from the rich to make himself richer.

      Isn't this what we all aspire too?! The diff between this and "the rich" is the rich stole from the poor to begin with! Stealing from the rich is basically payback. Of course the conseqences can be higher.

      "Holy fsck, Batman!...

    13. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're almost spot on, the lesson to learn from this charade is that you should never ever use servers located inside the USA for any business unless you're also a US citizen and wear a black suite and tie (like the managers of google, youtube, etc.)

    14. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Tom · · Score: 2

      [...] over a German living in New Zealand whose company was registered in Hong Kong?

      Who is not living in both Germany and Hong Kong anymore because of previous conflicts with the law, including being convicted of crimes?

      Why is it so difficult for most /. readers to understand that there can be two assholes in a fight, and rooting for one of them just because you personally dislike the other isn't the answer?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Seems rather hypocritical, to me. But then, they are the big money, changing the nation's laws to suit American interests.

      Why would you expect foreign powers to deal with individual persons the same way as they would the democratically-elected governing party of a sovereign nation?

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    16. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is rooting? I think the international "legal system" fucking up is a MUCH BIGGER DEAL than Kim Dotcom fucking up some royalties via his brand of piracy.

    17. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall any attempt by him to settle. given the amount he infringed I doubt even he would have enough to cover a settlement, but I would happily bet if he had offered a reasonable settlement he too might not be neck deep in shit and still sinking. There is also the little matter of intent!

    18. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Tom · · Score: 2

      It's not so difficult to understand that both of the players in this game are fuckers. You don't need to pick one or the other. "much bigger deal" doesn't make much sense unless you are distributing limited resources. When you're the police dispatcher and you have exactly one car available and one person phones in a murder and the other his neighbours being loud, the question makes sense to decide where to send it (first). But "not being ok with something" is not a limited resource. You don't have to focus on the legal system issues and drop the Kim is a fucker part.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > "much bigger deal" doesn't make much sense unless you are distributing limited resources

      Last time I checked, all resources are limited, and growing more limited as the world population expands. If the police force is not suffering from having limited resources, it probably is a good idea to check whether it should be downsized, and the savings invested in other areas of government which are suffering from limited resources, for example, Social Security or education.

    20. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Tom · · Score: 1

      Ah, so your argument is that the resources used to prosecute Kimble could be used elsewhere?

      So what you're saying is that we should let known criminals go free because children in Africa are starving?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:He's not in jail, despite admitting guilt by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > because children in Africa are starving

      Nice strawman, there.

      However, reading (or willingness to actually address the point raised) fail.

      Oh, and I like the use of "known criminals go free", as if it isn't actually written into the Constitution (due process) that yes, eventually (most) criminals need to be "go free" after they have served their sentences. Don't know what that logical fallacy is, though: appeal to fear? Appeal to moral panic?

  13. Re:why why WHY? by quax · · Score: 2

    Dang it, I moderated this as 'Funny' but it still shows as "Informative" which it really isn't.

    Now I have to write this comment just to role back the moderation.

  14. Re:why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He installed a fiber line to his house just so he could beat people at Call of Duty and be ranked in the top rank in the world. That's how much of a piece of human garbage he is.

    You upset because online games aren't fair, bro? Lag is a handicap, deal with it. Change your tactics, improve your skills, and quit whining. If you want games to be fair, play LAN with your mates instead.

  15. Re:why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can we not simply charge certain people with being fat, unbearable, arrogant bastards. He installed a fiber line to his house just so he could beat people at Call of Duty and be ranked in the top rank in the world. That's how much of a piece of human garbage he is. He's like that fat, stupid 30-40 year old who acts like a 12 year old, flaunts the law like he's all tough and untouchable, then acts like a kicked puppy when things don't go his way. They really, really, really should just execute him to make an example for all internet neckbeard douche-trolls like him.

    You are a sad, bitter little man.

  16. Re:why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why so sure he's little? Maybe he's a sad bitter big fat man!

  17. Re:why why WHY? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Really? Because some people haven't read the wikipedia page about what a waste of fat that piece of shit is.

  18. Re:why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly your fat and shit are being put to good use.

  19. Re: why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You may want to get your sarcasm detector looked at, it appears to be offline.

  20. Passport should be enough by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Passport should be enough - not many ways out of New Zealand.

    1. Re:Passport should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are all those smugglers I keep hearing about, and why hasn't one of them smuggled him out in a shipping container by now?

    2. Re:Passport should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But he's a pirate, wouldn't he just steal a boat and sail off into the sunset?

    3. Re:Passport should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People smugglers only exist when being used to threaten the population with how evil foreigners are, and how we need to tighten the laws before we can catch them.

    4. Re:Passport should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you stop a whale leaving the country?

    5. Re:Passport should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Japan, you can send your research fleet after it.

    6. Re:Passport should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sail off to where?

      http://jrhennessy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/if-you-come-by-boat-001.jpg

  21. Re:why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Because some people haven't read the wikipedia page about what a waste of fat that piece of shit is.

    I'm sure you are beautiful, rich and famous...

  22. Re:why why WHY? by ls671 · · Score: 1

    You must be new around here. Where did you get that low uid from?

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  23. That's fuckin' great by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    'Criminal copyright violation'

    They will use nuclear weapons to enforce copyright.. The thought is just so cool...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Re:Let's hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not rape, it's sphincter infringement.

  25. Das ist ein FAT Deutchlander! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grossen FAT mein liebes kampf!

    1. Re:Das ist ein FAT Deutchlander! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Argggghhhh, people that do not know German should be shot for mangling it!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Das ist ein FAT Deutchlander! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mea, people WHO? And don't you mean, MENGELEing it? Or Gas (why waste a bullet)? High Hilter!

    3. Re:Das ist ein FAT Deutchlander! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that doesn't seem fair, people that DO know German deserve a much harsher penalty for mangling it!

    4. Re:Das ist ein FAT Deutchlander! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argggghhhh, people that German do not know be shot it for mangling !

  26. Now we will find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if the corrupt, criminal U.S gov has its slimy tentacles deep in the NZ gov or not.

    1. Re:Now we will find out by gweihir · · Score: 2

      It has. Depend on it. There will be enough immoral scum in the NZ government that they can buy and coerce quite a few people. Politicians are routinely the worst the human race has to offer, with very few exception that may qualify as people of average decency. The real question is whether they will use it for this purpose.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Now we will find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the corrupt, criminal U.S gov has its slimy tentacles deep in the NZ gov or not.

      The US government is just a front for large corrupt corporations that exist in a lot of countries.

    3. Re:Now we will find out by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      As a Kiwi who voted for the present government (and would do so again - sane alternatives just don't exist) I'm not sure if your your post is +1 Insightful or -1 DamnTheTruthHurts. :)

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  27. Mega must be successful by Issarlk · · Score: 1

    Mega must be more successful than we think. The masters are not pleased.

    1. Re:Mega must be successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. A few days ago, US senator Leahy wrote a letter to Visa and Mastercard asking them to stop doing business with "cyberlocker" sites like Mega. While in other countries this senator would probably be arrested for illegal business practices, violation of cartel laws and corruption, this seems to be totally normal in the US.

  28. I thought he was broke? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    What's he going to do, swim to Tasmania?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:I thought he was broke? by 8086 · · Score: 1

      More like float

  29. Re:why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that even idiots like you are given mod points in the first place is why Slashdot's moderation system is a sad joke. If that post isn't informative enough, try here.

  30. Re:Let's hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must go to or have gone to UWVA? The uni allows any accused of rape to informally admit the wrongdoing and promise to be a better person in the future. No judicial system involvment at all. BTW, get caught cheating at UWVA and you are expelled. Rape some bitch (or jock, I suppose)? Okay, just don't let it happen again.

  31. Re:why why WHY? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

    The only piece of shit here is you.

  32. A flight risk? by stevez67 · · Score: 2

    I didn't know Kim Dotcom could fly. Float, maybe.

  33. And so misinformed by popo · · Score: 2

    Well in New Zealand and everywhere else. copyright infringement is a civil offense,

    Will somebody please tell the ignoramuses at ZDnet that there's no such thing as a "criminal copyright violation"?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:And so misinformed by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      17 U.S. Code 506 begs to differ.

      "(a) Criminal Infringement.—
      (1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
      (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
      (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
      (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
      "

      Makes copyright infringement (a civil matter) for commercial gain a criminal matter.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  34. He's in jail? No 20 year criminal career? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Are you under the impression that he IS in jail?
    That his custom license plate isn't GUILTY?
    Certainly that history of dozens of charges and multiple convictions in three different countries never happened?

    Seriously, I bet I know what you take issue with - you like getting free stuff. That's cool. You could have the intellectual honesty to admit that to yourself. He did it, he admits he's guilty, and your glad he did it because you got a ripped copy of The Fast and Furious 6 out of it. That's called being honest with yourself.

    Here's something you probably didn't know even when you had glimpses of self-honesty though, and it'll twist your mind. Along with his previous convictions for fraud and all is one for pump-and-dump insider trading. Yep, he made millions screwing people over in the STOCK MARKET. The hero in your story is not only a Wall Street multimillionaire, he's such a crook at it that he stood out even there and even the financial regulators couldn't put up with a guy as scummy as him. Mind. Blown.

  35. USA, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enemey of free people worldwide.

  36. Re:Let's hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone "violates" him after all the people's copyrights he has violated.

    Most of the copyrights are owned by corporations and not people. Even so, if you really think he's that bad of a person then you should get a gun and shoot yourself in the head with it. You're not using your brain for anything special. Just like all the shills and scumb who think copyright is a good thing.

  37. Re:why why WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You upset because online games aren't fair, bro? Lag is a handicap, deal with it. Change your tactics, improve your skills, and quit whining. If you want games to be fair, play LAN with your mates instead.

    Then he would bitch that his mom didn't buy him a fast enough Ethernet or Graphics card.

  38. Re:why why WHY? by quax · · Score: 1

    No worries anonymous coward. If he has already been found guilty in the court of wikipedia why wait on the earthly jurisprudence.

    All good.

  39. It has to be a crime in NZ, too by davecb · · Score: 1

    Countries will extradite their citizens if they've been charged with a crime, but it has to be a crime in both countries, and it needs to be of some severity. Parking tickets aren't enough to get me extradited from Canada, even though not paying them is a misdemanor. Similarly, charging me with blasphemy in Iran and asking for me to extradited won't work either.

    NZ needs to have made copyright infringement an indictable offence, and they need to have done so before Mr Dotcom was charged.

    If not, and if they wish to get rid of him, they need to ensure somehow that he doesn't have a lawyer, and then hope he can't defend himself adequately.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:It has to be a crime in NZ, too by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it already is: Copyright Act 1994 #143 section 131. http://www.legislation.govt.nz...
      "Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects
      (1)Every person commits an offence against this section who, other than pursuant to a copyright licence,—
      (a)makes for sale or hire; or
      (b)imports into New Zealand otherwise than for that person's private and domestic use; or
      (c)possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright; or
      (d)in the course of a business,—
      (i)offers or exposes for sale or hire; or
      (ii)exhibits in public; or
      (iii)distributes; or
      (e)in the course of a business or otherwise, sells or lets for hire; or
      (f)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner—
      an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
      (2)Every person commits an offence against this section who—
      (a)makes an object specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work; or
      (b)has such an object in that person's possession,—
      knowing that the object is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business.
      (3)Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence against this section who—
      (a)causes a literary, dramatic, or musical work to be performed, where that performance infringes copyright in that work; or
      (b)causes a sound recording or film to be played in public or shown in public, where that playing or showing infringes copyright in that sound recording or film,—
      knowing that copyright in the work or, as the case requires, the sound recording or film would be infringed by that performance or, as the case requires, that playing or that showing.
      (4)Nothing in subsection (3) applies in respect of infringement of copyright by the reception of a communication work.
      (5)Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction—
      (a)in the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a fine not exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to which the offence relates, but not exceeding $150,000 in respect of the same transaction, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years:
      (b)in the case of an offence against subsection (2) or subsection (3), to a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
      (6)Where any person is convicted of an offence against this section in circumstances where that offence involves the making of profit or gain, that offence shall be deemed to have caused a loss of property for the purposes of section 32(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2002, and the provisions of that Act relating to the imposition of the sentence of reparation shall apply accordingly.
      (7)Sections 126 to 129 (which relate to presumptions) do not apply to proceedings for an offence against this section.
      (8)[Repealed]
      Compare: 1962 No 33 s 28(1)–(3), (5); 1990 No 71 s 3; Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 107 (UK)
      Section 131(4): amended, on 31 October 2008, by section 66 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 (2008 No 27).
      Section 131(5): substituted, on 19 May 1998, by section 6(1) of the Copyright (Removal of Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act 1998 (1998 No 20).
      Section 131(5): amended, on 20 August 2003, by section 201 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (2002 No 49).
      Section 131(5)(a): amended, on 20 August 2003, by section 201 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (2002 No 49).
      Section 131(5)(b): amended, on 20 August 2003, by section 201 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (2002 No 49).
      Section 131(6): amended, on 30 June 2002, by section 186 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (2002 No 9).
      Section 131(8): repealed, on 19 May 1998, by section 6(2) of the Copyright (Removal of Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act 1998 (1998 No 20).
      "

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:It has to be a crime in NZ, too by davecb · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but it does need to be an indictable act, under the NZ criminal code. This looks rather like a civil copyright act, much like Canada's, and quite different from the US criminal one. (The US has two, one civil, one criminal).

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    3. Re:It has to be a crime in NZ, too by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      the first line of the section (the header, even) should provide some clue here: "Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing objects".

      Second clue should be clear in paragraph 7, which moves the burden of proof from that of presumption (hence balance of probabilities - where a finding of guilt is based on the finding of fact, not intent) to a burden of evidence (hence to intent: in the present case, did the offender gain by violation?). The fact that I have a hard drive full of music ripped from my own CDs would be enough in a civil proceeding to find that I was distributing (which, as you might guess, is piss easy to achieve - all you need is a directory listing), but in a criminal proceeding the burden of proof would be on the claimant that files trackable to source did in fact come from that hard drive with my knowledge, consent and connivance with the additional intent and evidenced that I made profit from such distribution without written consent or licence from the copyright holder. THAT is bloody difficult to achieve.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  40. Trickle down. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    why doesn't the US DOJ expend their effort prosecuting the crooks on Wall Street whole defrauded the whole world of a trillion dollars selling those bogus Credit Default Swaps that led up to the crash of 2008?

    Because immoral and illegal are two different things. CDS were not illegal in 2008, and are still not illegal now. That banks suddenly stopped trusting each other in 2008 was not Wall Street's fault, it was a failure of government and ultimately a failure of the people who elected them on the mantra of deregulation.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  41. Are we talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we talking about American Politics again?

  42. Good!! he should be in jail!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He know far well he was breaking copyright law and figure he was untouchable!!! As well a big douche bag, just as Julian Assange thought he would get away with leaking government secrets with now repercussions.

  43. Re:Let's hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF has uni to do with rapes anyways? Cheating is their business. If you rob someone or rape someone or steal something it's none of their business. There is a police and justice system for handling those charges.

  44. Two words for you: New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will note those two words ARE NOT "USA". This should indicate to you that the US penal code does not apply BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING USA!!!

  45. And Kim's actions were not illegal when taken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So therefore your "difference" is no difference at all.