Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom Loses Extradition Case (stuff.co.nz)

BitterOak writes: Kim Dotcom has lost his extradition case in New Zealand, and will now (probably) have to face trial in the U.S. on charges of money laundering, racketeering, and copyright violation. Three of Dotcom's associates face extradition as well. "Although the U.S. didn't need to prove the charge, counsel had to at least prove there was an answerable case overseas to fulfil extradition requirements. Lawyers for the four argued that the court didn't have jurisdiction to order extradition and that copyright law showed they weren't required or expected to filter every single piece of copyrighted material on Mega." Dotcom's lawyers say they plan to appeal, which would see the case reviewed by New Zealand's High Court. All four will remain free on bail in the meantime.

98 comments

  1. What a criminal by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Funny

    How dare he provide an useful service at a reasonable cost? He's a monster, I tell ya!

    1. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am amused he is being charged with 3rd party piracy (piracy by by providing a service that allows others to pirate material) called now "criminal copyright infringement" Which isn't even defined in the US justice system and many, many other US companies are guilty of.. yet remain unprosecuted to this day. (mega even removed known pirated material once it was issued with takedown notices)

      The other charges he/they could be guilty of, not enough information. But sadly if he is extradited I doubt he will get anything close to a fair trial, the servers as I understand it were not even located on US soil, yet the US is claiming jurisdiction for prosecution based on copyrighted material being produced in their country.. new ground indeed, a landmark case that when lost (as we all know it will be) means that people can be extradited to a country, based on a service they provided to others that "that" 3rd party abused.. why aren't the persons responsible for the infringement of the copyright being charged?

      Captcha: Sorely

    2. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why aren't the persons responsible for the infringement of the copyright being charged?

      Because they can't find them. Whereas with Kim they know where he is. Makes things much easier.

    3. Re:What a criminal by beaverdownunder · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quoted from a comment on HN:

      "Not accurate. Read the indictment.

      - Bottom of page 11: thirty-nine infringing copies of copyright motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting... in the Eastern District of Virginia

      - Page 18:The Mega Conspiracy leases approximately 25 petabytes of data storage from Carpathia to store content associated with The Mega Site.

      - It also looks like they leased servers in the US from Cogent, Leaseweb. They paid Carpathia $13M US to host Mega files in the US.

      - They also used a US-based Paypal account to receive funds and pay the different hosts in the US.

      - They made "reward" payments to US residents who provided copyrighted material.

      Mega was running an illegal business in the US."

    4. Re:What a criminal by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if he hadn't leased servers in the U.S. he would be in the clear? There might be a lesson for other foreign entrepreneurs to be learned here. It's no wonder so many IT jobs are being outsourced overseas.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    5. Re:What a criminal by mjwx · · Score: 2

      How dare he provide an useful service at a reasonable cost? He's a monster, I tell ya!

      Well the money laundering and racketeering are small time stuff, just charges to sweeten the pot. It's copyright infringement that's the real crime here. Such a heinous and despicable crime, I hear they cant keep the Infingers at San Quentin any more as the murders and rapists might start learning from them, they're having to build a new wing at ADX Florence just for them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re: What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The gov't should check out the pirated content on YouTube.

    7. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The indictment, which was authored by DoJ on behalf of the MAFIAA?

      I'm sure they'd never try the "throw as much shit at the wall as we can, SOMETHING WILL STICK!" strategy.

      Because the MAFIAA has proven to be the most ethical, moral, fair minded cartel on the planet, right?

    8. Re:What a criminal by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 5, Informative

      you have probably never heard a story from the other side. like my wife's former classmates (small time artists composing and recording classical music for use in semi-professional videos) whose original work ended up on megafiles. they spent months trying to get megafiles to delete their work. to absolutely NO AVAIL!!! links to their work spread around the internet and their income slowly dropped to almost zero. when, after 2 years and lots of money spent, they managed to push this scumbag company to drop the files, they reappeared almost immediately and links spread again. the new files had the same md5sum so i suggested they ask for deletion of all files with the same hash, but the people they dealt with just taunted them.

    9. Re:What a criminal by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      - They made "reward" payments to US residents who provided copyrighted material.

      Was that really true?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (mega even removed known pirated material once it was issued with takedown notices)

      No, it didn't.

      It occasionally removed a single specific link to a file but kept it and all other links that pointed to that particular file online.

    11. Re:What a criminal by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or.. like blogger?
      or... like google docs/drive/files?
      or... like amazon?

      all these are used for same kind of purposes with advertising based rewards that go to the actual perpetrators(the people using the service to share).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:What a criminal by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well the money laundering and racketeering are small time stuff, just charges to sweeten the pot. It's copyright infringement that's the real crime here.

      Yes, but they are the most serious charges. Criminal copyright infringement won't get you any more than 5 years in prison for the first offense. Money laundering and racketeering could get each him 20 years in the slammer.

      Incidentally, there are lots of things wrong with our criminal system, and the fact that you can put "money laundering" on almost any crime is ridiculous. Congress never intended for this to be more than a 5 year prison sentence.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re: What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The organizations you childishly refer to as "MAFIAA" (what a laughable term, are you in 3rd grade?) have not acted illegally and they are acting within their rights to protect their property and interests. You don't like it? Too bad, there's nothing you can do. Suck it up.

    14. Re: What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Legality and morality are two different things.

      In many cases, the recording industry can best be described as legally evil.

    15. Re:What a criminal by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      they spent months trying to get megafiles to delete their work. to absolutely NO AVAIL!!!

      Did they actually send a DMCA takedown request, or just do a bunch of useless crap that was guaranteed not to work?

      when, after 2 years and lots of money spent, they managed to push this scumbag company to drop the files, they reappeared almost immediately and links spread again.

      Welcome to the modern world. You may recycle your buggy whip to the left

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true, but it does not tell us a lot because of the following:

      By default all material is under copyright in most jurisdictions, so (essentially) every upload is of copyrighted material.
      But whether or not you are breaching copyright by uploading it, well that is another matter entirely.

      Megaupload paid users for frequently downloaded files, no matter what the files were as far as I understand.
      So yes, megaupload paid US residents for files they had uploaded, and others downloaded - but if that is the payment referred to,
      it was not specifically because it was uploaded material that was in violation of copyright, it was simply uploaded material that was
      frequently requested.

      Now, my main issue with this case and others like that is not whether or not the accused knew about the material uploaded, or even if
      they directly or indirectly incentivised copyright violations - it is all things that will be forgotten in a couple of decades.

      The main issue is this: It is easy to show that any privacy preserving service is unable to weed out copyrighted material from their
      content stream without computationally completely infeasible resources, and as a corollary - If you can become a criminal for hosting others
      files regardless of the payment scheme, then it has for all practical purposes become illegal to provide privacy preserving file sharing.

      When people yap about that they incentivised copyright violations, remember that this payment scheme is just about exactly how advertising
      is paid for. You show an advert, and get paid for the people that view it, and click it. Doing this you will pay people to be complicit in all kinds
      of illegal schemes and activities - the only difference here is who is the victim, and who is the perpetrator. The victim here is private individual
      who through advertising get lured into situations causing financial loss, this is considered mostly legal, and if not - no advertising network has ever
      been named an accomplice because of these 3rd party transactions. But when the victim is a media company, suddenly a 3rd party can be held
      responsible using exactly the same payment scheme - they are no more, or no less an accomplice than the web page showing google ads for
      a fake product.

      These cases are simply about IP colonialism, countries trying to grab as much legal land as possible with the IP realm. It is colonialism again,
      and it is as tasteless and ugly as ever.

    17. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were forms of referral bonus that ended up paying copyright infringers. Roughly the same as those on You Tube who infringe copyright and collect money from the ads run on their uploads. It's a common practice that was ignored at YouTube and persecuted at Mega

    18. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they send an actual DMCA takedown notice, or just polite requests? Did they hire a lawyer to enforce the copyright?

      Your post strikes me as a case of "I took the car to the shop for an oil change, and they didn't replace the tires" complaint.

      Someone unable to follow the process doesn't deserve extra sympathy because they are dumb.

    19. Re:What a criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly correct. When selecting a county to host your data, you need to consider what it's copyright laws are like. That rules out the US fit most uses, although having some caching servers there that are run by a third party can work.

      Europe is a mixed bad, really depends how stupid the host is and if you plan to violate anyone's privacy, since privacy laws are much stronger there.

      Be sure to encrypt everything too, preferably in a way that makes it impossible for you to police content. Otherwise you will be required to by lawsuit, even if the law says you aren't.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:What a criminal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Evidence suggests that piracy boosts profits, so perhaps you should consider other reasons why revenue declined. Did you expect it to go up for some reason, or have a control to compare it with?

      Chances are you wasted a lot of effort that could have been invested in promoting and creating new content.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:What a criminal by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The fun (or rather, sad) bit is that he actually IS a criminal. He pretty much did everything in the book that should get him locked up, from insider trading to fraud, fleecing pretty much everyone he ever dealt with and causing damages in the millions to thousands of "business partners" (others would say patsies). Not once he's really gotten into any more serious trouble than what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

      But then Kimmie dared to butt heads with an organization that is FAR better at this game than even he is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re: What a criminal by Moonrazor · · Score: 1

      Best described as legally evil? More like "Lawful Evil".

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea........
    23. Re:What a criminal by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      DMCA only applies to US. neither our friends, not megaupload were based there. so it went through an IP lawyer who knew how to approach this on an international level. (their email address for reporting copyright infringement was probably an alias for spam@megaupload) they kept dodging the bullet by claiming they're not subject to this and that, later they claimed to have made it unavailable in our country only (all bullsh*t). it was really pointless and frustrating. their each answer took at least 2-4 weeks. at no point were they interested in the fact that original authors might not want their work available for free.

    24. Re: What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the recording industry can best be described as legally evil.

      Because they force you to pay if you consume their content without payment? Who's being evil here, the cheapskate consumers? The only evil the recording industry (and every other business) is guilty of is overcharging and price gouging.

    25. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      why aren't the persons responsible for the infringement of the copyright being charged?

      Because they can't find them. Whereas with Kim they know where he is. Makes things much easier.

      Shouldn't the telecommunications (ISP, telephone, satellite, etc.) company(ies) which provided the networks over which the data traversed be charged as well?

    26. Re: What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only evil the recording industry (and every other business) is guilty of is overcharging and price gouging.

      No, they are actually guilty of more evils than that.

      As I am fairly sure you are well aware but apparently chose to ignore.

    27. Re:What a criminal by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      This story sounds very questionable. If they were selling music for use in commercial videos, rather than to consumers, how could their income go down with piracy? Using their music in commercial videos without permission would mean a major payday for your musician friends in court and massive loss for the people who pirated the music. They were wasting their time with the wrong target at best.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    28. Re:What a criminal by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Evidence suggests that piracy boosts profits, so perhaps you should consider other reasons why revenue declined. Did you expect it to go up for some reason, or have a control to compare it with?

      Chances are you wasted a lot of effort that could have been invested in promoting and creating new content.

      I don't doubt it; the problem is far too many people think "found on internet" equates to "free to use." One company I used to work for had copyrighted material in some of their training material used for public, paid seminars. When I pointed out that was not a good idea since the stuff was copyrighted a senior VP said "We found it on the internet so we're free to use it..." Schmuck was a lawyer to boot. I pointed out I can find our copyrighted training materials, books, etc on the internet as well so are they free for everyone to use as well? As for users of the music, if they paid megauplaod for access they may very well have assumed they have a right to use it and were not knowingly infringing.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    29. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, are they afraid to work for money, like everyone else has to? What is being passed around the internet is only a link to a recording of work they once did. Why should they get paid for that?

      If they want people to pay them to hear their music, they should be performing it live.

    30. Re:What a criminal by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      from what i remember, it was basically a string quintet they started on extended maternity leave. their music was meant primarily for wedding/anniversary/baptism videos. for a few of them, this was their only source of income (single mothers). just like somebody above pointed out, once the links to their work became ubiquitous, people just assumed it was public domain. when they contacted a few people who used their music in youtube videos, the people were always surprised it was copyrighted. that was also how they found out about megaupload.

      major payday in court? maybe in america. they were not backed by a large stock music website with access to lawyers in every country or anything like that. (fun fact: stock music websites' cut is around 80%)

    31. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having dealt with Kimble since the early 90s I can tell you, he deserves this and more. He has, his entire life, been a scumbag criminal. He even sold people out in the BBS days when he himself got busted for carding. Guy is a piece of shit, good riddens.

    32. Re: What a criminal by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

      And what about the way Facebook allows people to steal other people's videos from Youtube or whatever, host them of Facebook, Facebook gains ad revenue and when the injured party complains, the video gets taken down a couple of months later - and after the buzz for the video has waned & Facebook had gained most of the revenue it could expect to from the pirated media.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    33. Re:What a criminal by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think it was Cox who was just recently found to be in violation, so no but yes.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      riddance*

    35. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can sympathize with the plight of an author/artist as I am one. I ran a company in the 1990s that was built off my artistic works. The business was quite good. As the work was easily copied I built a business model around the fact that people would copy it. Your problem is you failed to produce a feasible business model and/or adapt to the changing environment. Your business isn't guaranteed and shouldn't be. Sometimes in life you have to adapt.

      I no longer have a business built off my artistic works, but I do have a business built off my technical works (software development). It's 100% libre. You can copy, modify, adapt, etc as you see fit. This has led to competitors trying to copy my business. It's more annoying to me that they're taking advantage of the situation to profit and contributing nothing back than that they're utilizing my work. After all I did give it away voluntarily and even encourage people to use it and improve upon it. The end result though is I've positioned the company such that it's very difficult to truly undermine our financial well being. We're not including non-free pieces or anything like that, but the software we develop is dependent on hardware for which isn't readily available after a certain period. It would take years and significant investment by a third party to become a serious concern.

    36. Re:What a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare he provide an useful service at a reasonable cost? He's a monster, I tell ya!

      Stop defending him. He's scum and he was scum before he was running mega and now he hides behind useful idiots like you.

    37. Re:What a criminal by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Evidence suggests that piracy boosts profits

      Except that in this case it didn't. So, um, maybe it's not always true.

      so perhaps you should consider other reasons why revenue declined

      I think in this particular case revenue declined because people could download the music for free instead of paying royalties to use it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    38. Re:What a criminal by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the service at http://mega.nz/?

      That service never sees unencrypted data, so could not even do hash comparisons to remove infringing files.

    39. Re:What a criminal by countach · · Score: 1

      While your story might enact some sympathy the reality is that these files are traded in thousands of forums so getting if off mega wouldn't solve much. Plus it is actually hard for companies to police this stuff. Copyright infringing material goes up on YouTube millions of times a day, and nobody is prosecuted.

    40. Re:What a criminal by countach · · Score: 1

      Yah right, because the consumers of string quartet music are hanging around in shady forums ready to pounce and rip off the music. Come on get serious. String quartet music is a dime a dozen.

    41. Re:What a criminal by countach · · Score: 1

      Really. And what court was this proven in?

    42. Re:What a criminal by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      He may be scum, but nothing is scummier than the MAFIAA.

    43. Re:What a criminal by tobiah · · Score: 1

      a corrupt one

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  2. Good luck to him by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Good luck to him.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Good luck to him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wishing this asshole good luck?

    2. Re:Good luck to him by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The US legal system is an unfair black hole. There's no way he deserves 45 years in prison for what he's done, but that's what he's facing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Goodluck Kim by Marquis231 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Soon he'll be off to the USA, to disappear within the US federal justice system on trumped up charges of breaking the law in a country he's never set foot inside of. A warning to the wise, just like it was with the British Empire, break our laws and we will find you no matter where on the globe you reside. USA Law is universal apparently.

    1. Re:Goodluck Kim by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      So it's a good thing that USA will never be under the International court of justice because that would violate the citizens of the United States inherit civil rights?

      If it's not a good thing, then I'd posit that some treaties need to be re-examined and changed.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re:Goodluck Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > disappear within the US federal justice system

      If he is lucky. More likely is the fact that he'll be shipped to Gitmo where those Republicans are stacking us like cordwood. Stacking us like cordwood.

    3. Re:Goodluck Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By us, you mean "terrorists" right? Because that's about all that's in there.

      PS: who's been in charge of the military for the last 7 years?

    4. Re:Goodluck Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it's a good thing that USA will never be under the International court of justice because that would violate the citizens of the United States inherit civil rights?

      If it's not a good thing, then I'd posit that some treaties need to be re-examined and changed.

      People like Dick Cheney would be held accountable for war crimes if the US was a member of that international court.

      The US is not about what's just and morally right, the US is about MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. DO be sure to update your own
      worldview accordingly.

    5. Re:Goodluck Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm struggling to see a connection with the British Empire here.

    6. Re:Goodluck Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The connection is that, just like the British Empire (and the Roman one before it), it will all come crashing down eventually. Nothing lasts forever, so enjoy your "USA - World Police" rhetoric while it lasts. Just try not to piss off too many nations whilst you're at it, though, as that tends to come back to haunt you when your empire finally crumbles.

    7. Re:Goodluck Kim by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Exactly what war crimes did Dick Cheney commit?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:Goodluck Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he were a respectable man, he'd have my sympathy. However, Kim Fatbomb is a fucking scumbag with a long rap sheat of cheating people. Fuck him any anyone who stands by him.

    9. Re:Goodluck Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that if he had stayed in germany he never would have been shipped off.

      But he just had to be cool, had to leave to a better country, had to look for greener pastures.

    10. Re:Goodluck Kim by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Exactly what war crimes did Dick Cheney commit?

      Iraq.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Goodluck Kim by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, declaring war, and deposing a dictator is a war crime committed by the vice president of the US?

      That is an odd definition of war crime.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Already guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nice that they're going to bother with the charade of a trial but he'll never be a free man again

  5. Anyone who distinguishes any of the 5 eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has none.

  6. And Paypal was complicit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told PP about mega a long time ago. At first someone listened, and mega was not able to take PP for a time, but not long after, not long at all, it was back. Anyone that can pay $13,000,000.00 a year to one hosting company can pay off some slimeball at PP to get his payment processing back.

    1. Re:And Paypal was complicit by KGIII · · Score: 0

      So you're proud of being a snitch. Gotcha. "They were doing something I didn't like, wasn't hurting me, probably wasn't hurting anyone, but they were making money and I'm jealous - so I snitched on them." I could kind of justify it if they were doing demonstrable harm but I'm not seeing that. And yes, I'm actually pro-copyright protections (in a less draconian fashion and with checks and balances).

      If you pirate something that doesn't mean you were going to pay for it. In fact, it seems to mean that you were not going to pay for it. The kicker is, after pirating it, some folks (who'd not have been customers) end up opting to pay for the product anyhow - to get new features, to support the project now that they realize it is valuable, etc...

      But, more importantly, you weren't harmed by them and just were envious so you decided to take away their ability to make money even though they weren't entirely to blame for the actions of third parties. In fact, they acted on take-down notices as I recall. But no, you're jealous and felt the need to, "do something." And you're proud enough of this to tell us about it. You feel important. It's really sad that that makes you feel important. You need a more meaningful life if you're feeling compelled to meddle in the affairs of others.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  7. When I first heard his name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I thought he was Korean or Vietnamese. Y'know, something like Kim Dat-Kom or something.

  8. What happened New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to admire the New Zealand government of the 80s standing up to the US by not allowing nuclear powered vessels in their waters.
    Looks like it's been replaced by a group of sycophantic ass lickers now apparently.
    What a fucking shame.

    1. Re: What happened New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 80s countries like New Zealand could actually get some manoeuvering space because even superpowers couldn't afford to have them look too sympathetically to the "other side". Every piece counted. Now the US rules over the world and everybody has to step in line.

    2. Re: What happened New Zealand? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People laughed at me when I wept over the fall of the Soviet Union, claiming that it ensured our freedom.

      Wonder if they are still laughing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: What happened New Zealand? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You'd be doing real well now if the Soviet Union was the only superpower.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:What happened New Zealand? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Not allowing nuclear POWERED vessels? If their objection was to the nuclear power, then that was a pretty dumb "moral stance" to take.

    5. Re: What happened New Zealand? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like that was in any way ever a scenario.

      The only thing that keeps the current system afloat is that we don't have a "West" showing us just how much better we could have it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:What happened New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this modded up? They didn't want nuclear reactors in their harbours. You know, with the associated risk of having a meltdown and sinking to the bottom of the harbour? I guess you think that's pretty dumb since it hasn't ever happened before. I wonder if you'd think it was dumb if it had of happened.

    7. Re:What happened New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone

    8. Re: What happened New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People laughed at me when I wept over the fall of the Soviet Union, claiming that it ensured our freedom.

      Wonder if they are still laughing.

      Yep, watching you cry is hilarious.

    9. Re: What happened New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU, you piece of shit. You wept over the fall of the country that I and millions of others were prisoners of? Fuck you, die.

      You're still a prisoner, just with a different jailer now, comrade

    10. Re:What happened New Zealand? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I know this will be hard for most slashdotters to understand, but most countries would extradite someone accused of racketeering and money laundering without a second's thought.

      And even the wholescale copyright infringement wouldn't be seen as acceptable like it is here.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re: What happened New Zealand? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You'd be doing real well now if the Soviet Union was the only superpower.

      Well done for completely missing his point. When the clearly flawed USSR existed, the West could legitimately say that (over all) it represented a better alternative.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. What came before the initial seizure of Jan 2012 by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interestingly Kim Dotcom was creating his own much fairer music service/label before the seizure of the servers etc in January 2012.

    Here is the best article I could find on google about it and the MegaUpload song takedown on YouTube.

    There were questions about whether this was the real reason the takedown happened. For anyone who doesn't remember.

  10. What I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... there was an answerable case ...

    "Racketeering" simply means 'organized criminals', although the usual requirement is criminal abuse of customers and 'potential' ("shame if your shop burned down") customers. So I'm curious, which criminals was he in a not-so-secret business deal with? And don't say all those un-convicted copyright pirates. Even better, how were his customers abused?

    So what brings you here, and don't say 'clown car'?, Krusty the clown's therapist, 'The Simpsons'.

    1. Re:What I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's like the "resisting arrest" charge when the person wasn't arrested for anything else. Conspiracy to commit a crime, when no other crime is charged shouldn't be a crime. One should have to be connected to a convicted crime for conspiracy to stick.

    2. Re:What I want to know by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So it's like the "resisting arrest" charge when the person wasn't arrested for anything else. Conspiracy to commit a crime, when no other crime is charged shouldn't be a crime. One should have to be connected to a convicted crime for conspiracy to stick.

      Utter bullshit. If (say) a group of terrorists plot to blow up a building, load up a van with Semtex and get caught on the way they are as guilty as if they'd gone ahead and exploded the bomb, and will be punished as such.

      Same with armed robbers or kidnappers or any other crime.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. Kangaroo Courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets start taking bets

    1:100 whole thing will not be a media circus.
    1:1,000 the numbers will not be the hysterical trumped up amounts from 10 years ago ("trillions in industry losses").
    1:10,000 he will not be held in a jail the entire time because he is a flight risk DESPITE the fact he was legally extradited.
    1:100,000 he gets a "fair" trial.
    1:1,000,000 he is found not guilty.

    PLACE YOUR BETS NOW!

    1. Re:Kangaroo Courts by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Set up the escrow. I'll take the 1:1,000,000. Count me in for $10.

      I'll take $50 for the 1:10,000

      I'll take $40 for the 1:100,000 if, by fair trial, you mean he doesn't have a successful appeal.

      The rest are too subjective and you'll need to define them better.

      In fact, I *am* a gambling man.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  12. Unnecessary force is a total embarassment by fred911 · · Score: 1

    This is what the state of militarization of our police departments has caused. https://youtu.be/pMas0tWc0sg
    This alone is sufficient cause for any sane court of law to deny extradition. Additionally, it provides more than sufficient justification for US citizens to assert their second amendment rights. We are in international embarrassment.

     

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Unnecessary force is a total embarassment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That occurred in New Zealand, and did not involve anyone from US police. What does that have to do with US citizen's second amendment rights, or the militarization of US police departments?

      Also, that is not an example of militarization, it was the equivalent of a SWAT team, which is supposed to have the equipment and training that the average police officer doesn't have. However, I don't know why NZ decided to deploy them in this case, unless there was some indication that Kim owned numerous firearms and might try to put up a fight.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Unnecessary force is a total embarassment by fred911 · · Score: 1

      It was 100% orchestrated by the FBI.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:Unnecessary force is a total embarassment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Which has 0% to do with your comment about militarization of the police.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Unnecessary force is a total embarassment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what the state of militarization of our police departments has caused. https://youtu.be/pMas0tWc0sg
      This alone is sufficient cause for any sane court of law to deny extradition. Additionally, it provides more than sufficient justification for US citizens to assert their second amendment rights. We are in international embarrassment.

      Just watched the youtube clip you linked and I must say I wish news here was that impartial and honest.

  13. In prison, he'll be the pie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know a couple of big old bull queers that'd just love to make his acquaintance. Especially that big, white, mushy butt of his.

  14. poor Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the greedy fascists will make him suffer for not respecting their imagination. disguisting humans.

  15. Easy resolution by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    He should just admit that he is a Muslim, then rather than being forced to come to this country he will not be able to come to this country.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  16. The whole thing is a shakedown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it smells like a week-old dead fish. Living in NZ we have heard a lot, even more as an IT professional.

    The seizing of servers from Carpathia Hosting was illegal, plain and simple, so the Feds could sift through it and find evidence without probable cause. As stated by other comments above, Megaupload did remove infringing copyright when notified, the DMCA works well then when used properly.

    So really, the "criminal copyright" is complete a BS made up thing where they need something to take him down. We have people blowing themselves and other people up, and *this* is a concern. Fuck that.

    Google does the same with Youtube (though they do act on DCMA requests as well), and "linking to sites that enable copyright infringement to occur". So what is different to KDC vs Google? easy, money and lawyers - and Google also has the keys to the kingdom and will royally screw anyone if the fuck with them. I know that KDC is no choir-boy, he was a busy lad in in his younger days growing up in Germany, but Megaupload was legit.

    Another thing I heard, and others may be able to verify, is KDC was going to start a thing called MegaMusic (os something like that) and he was actively approaching music artists to basically have free-to-play of their music, and the artisits would get revenue generated through imprint advertising through the service. I am quite sure the shutdown was masterminded by the RIAA and their ilk as KDC service would have cut them out completely.

    KDC is a guy who was using tech smart to disrupt a tired monopolistic industry, trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 2st centurey, and is being punished for it, same way Uber is disrupting taxi services, and so on.

    1. Re:The whole thing is a shakedown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot to add (I posted above) further to this - I am equally ashamed of how he has been treated here in New Zealand. We are a sovereign nation, or we were, and our government has steadily become the yappy lapdog of the USA.

    2. Re:The whole thing is a shakedown by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      KDC is a guy who was using tech smart to disrupt a tired monopolistic industry, trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 2st centurey, and is being punished for it, same way Uber is disrupting taxi services, and so on.

      The similarity is that in both cases they skirt round the law to make money.

      Not all of us consider making money the primary categorical imperative.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Kim Schmitz by khelms · · Score: 2

    Just because he likes to use a catchy assumed name doesn't mean the rest of us have to observe it.