Slashdot Mirror
Judge Allows Kim Dotcom To Livestream Court Hearing (mashable.com)
Kim Dotcom has been granted the right to livestream his extradition appeal on YouTube. The appeal hearing began Monday, but will be livestreamed tomorrow because "the cameraman needs to set this up professionally and implement the judge's live streaming rules." tweets Kim Dotcom. Mashable reports: "The United States, which wants Dotcom extradited from New Zealand, is against the request. Dotcom says a livestream is the only way to ensure a fair hearing. The U.S. is seeking the extradition of Dotcom and other Megaupload co-founders in hopes of taking them to court in America on charges of money-laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement. The charges stem from the operation of file-sharing website Megaupload, founded by Dotcom in 2005 and once the 13th most popular website on the internet. Users could upload movies, music and other content to the site and share with others, a practice the U.S. considers copyright infringement. The website reportedly made around $175 million before the FBI took it down in 2012. The U.S. says Megaupload cost copyright holders around $500 million, though Dotcom says it's not his fault users chose to upload the shared copyrighted material. Dotcom was arrested in 2012 after police raided his home, but was released on bail. A judge ruled in favor of his extradition to the U.S. in 2015, though Dotcom said at the time the judge was not interested in a fair hearing." Dotcom plans to revive Megaupload on January 20, 2017, urging people to "buy bitcoin while cheap," since he claims the launch will send the bitcoin price soaring way above its current $575 value. Every file transfer taking place over Megaupload "will be linked to a tiny Bitcoin micro transaction," Dotcom posted on Twitter.
So... I'm not going to pay the actual rights holder for the material... but I'm going to pay someone else? Not really following the logic here.
Hasn't this guy used up his 15 minutes by now?
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Maybe, if he was American.
This is illegal anyways, you can't be extradited to countries known to torture prisoners.
This guy was selling stuff stolen from US companies, and he doesn't think he should have to answer charges in the US?
Was he selling stolen things? Or did he make illegal copies and sell those?
Did he actually copy and sell things? Or was it the users who sold the illegal copies?
Did the users actually sell stolen copies? Or did they just give them away to others?
Did he have a DMCA-style takedown process?
What did he do different from DropBox and other online storage sites?
Was he a US citizen, or ever been to the US? Did his company operate in the US?
Were his crimes violent and criminal in nature, which would warrant extradition, or is this essentially a civil case?
No he wasn't. He was simply providing a platform to host online files. All he did was not bend to US media cartels the way YouTube or Dropbox did nor give the US government control over the systems the way Amazon or Microsoft does. At one point his system was considered the best file upload facility as it was fully encrypted so no company or government could see what actually was on it.
The US government wanted him, a company not even based out of the US, to implement DMCA controls similar to YouTube's (where any one could claim infringement and the content taken down), he refused and his site was taken offline and he was arrested.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
For Non-NZers wondering how a NZer might disagree to another NZer on this issue, please enjoy:
I can see you are yet another right wing National supporting cunt with his head up his arse. Take John Key's cock out of your mouth for a minute and you might make better points you stink hua.
Love him or hate him, the process by which Dotcom was buggered by these arse bandits was a complete balls up. The GCSB broke the law, your mate Key lied about it and before K-bar is charged with anything an entire business and all its employees were flushed down the gurgler.
And for what? For doing what youtube still do!
It bullocks plain and simple.
Copyright infringement. Theft is a criminal act. Copyright infringement is civil. Civil violations shouldn't result in extraditions ever.
If the movie giants weren't behind this; if someone distributed petabytes of indie films that barely had enough to get their films out, this case would have never gotten this far.
He's not being charged with theft. He's being charged with "secondary copyright infringement" ... which isn't a crime in the US or in New Zealand. On top of that, because he is legally fighting his extradition, they are saying he's a fugitive and that they can seize all of his assets (so he will have no way to defend himself if he does get extradited).
He didn't pay tribute to Hillary at The Clinton Foundation, otherwise he never would have had any problems.
Some fat pompous ass opens a private file locker site and some people use it to infringe copyright. He needs to be punished for this vile, illegal behavior.
Some old pompous ass opens a private email server and lies to the FBI and Congress about it containing classified information. No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.
He's not being charged with theft. He's being charged with "secondary copyright infringement" ... which isn't a crime in the US or in New Zealand.
He's been charged with felony copyright infringement. And racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering - all crimes in the US and New Zealand.
18 U.S. Code S 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright
As well as several other crimes.
Sometimes, facts come in handy.
So what does that tell you? Laws and inalienable rights have no meaning when whole countries can be bought outright.
Bollocks.
(Not bullocks, bollocks).
My kingdom for mod points, not just for the opposing view, but the wonderfully blue way in which it was presented.
Silence is a state of mime.
Do tell why.
No he wasn't. He was simply providing a platform to host online files. All he did was not bend to US media cartels the way YouTube or Dropbox did nor give the US government control over the systems the way Amazon or Microsoft does. At one point his system was considered the best file upload facility as it was fully encrypted so no company or government could see what actually was on it.
The US government wanted him, a company not even based out of the US, to implement DMCA controls similar to YouTube's (where any one could claim infringement and the content taken down), he refused and his site was taken offline and he was arrested.
If what he was doing was so above board, why didn't he sell advertising on his site in an open and honest way? Why all the money laundering and hidden transactions? He made it clear from the way he handled money from his advertisers that he knew he was doing something wrong.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
What a fantastic response. Surely this is the greatest response by anonymous in the history of Slashdot. Mod parent up.
Well of course it's felony, it always is when copyright infringement is criminal and not civil. But you're missing the most crucial part: they are NOT charging him with "copyright infringement" they're charging him with "secondary copyright infringement". Which is not a crime. It can be a civil issue, but there is no such thing as criminal secondary copyright infringement. And all the other charges hinge on that first charge. https://torrentfreak.com/presi...
Well to be fair, they're actually trying to charge him with "criminal secondary copyright infringement" which is not a real thing. Secondary infringement is a civil issue and has never been defined as criminal. https://torrentfreak.com/presi...
The laws can be changed to say that calling someone stupid is rape. It doesn't make it so.
I realized after I hit send.
So are you saying he made his own version of the Double Dutch Irish Sandwich to pay as little tax as possible?
Wake me when Apple and the rest are prevented from doing that by being raided.
Information is closer to speech than to goods.
He was exercising free speech, but US companies doesn't like that.
Or perhaps free speech only allows for hinting that people should kill someone you don't like, not communicating works of "art"?
Hmm... probably because old habits die hard...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I wanted to ask about this. EU countries have either refused extradition or required guarantees about how their citizens will be treated by the US. Does New Zealand have similar human rights laws?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why all the money laundering and hidden transactions?
You mean that think American companies have been getting away with for well over a century?
Oh yeah...
How cute.
The New Zealand government has been bowing down to the US government for years. Look at what they did to Bruce Simpson where the NZ tax office was used to shut down his "cruise missile" project (actions that were illegal under the laws the tax office is supposed to operate under I believe).
Justice demands that all trials be live streamed. The kangaroo courts cannot be trusted. All their actions must be subject to monitoring by the people.
If he was half the con-artist his detractors claim, he would have obeyed US-style laws for $1,000 per file. He can legally charge charge for services rendered to copyright holders. YouTube didn't implement the DMCA system: Sony and other RIAA members were protected from take-down provisions, with YouTube committing fraud on their behalf, while those same members could automatically take-down files belonging to other rights holders.
The US prosecutors will undoubtedly claim more serious offences such as attempting to "launch a nuclear missile". A live-feed will limit such dishonesty and enable an honest hearing.
US Code? We're not talking about a US citizen, so US laws do not apply to him. Go away troll.
(AU perspective chiming in) No idea what you mean, that's just how normal people talk. Though I personally would've replaced "bullocks" with "bullshit". Kiwis are a bit too polite sometimes.
Either your comment is missing several steps in the logic, or you think US laws don't apply to non-US citizens.
There are several broad circumstances in which they do. In the Internet age these circumstances occur more and more often.
I heard they had him on double secret probation for a couple years.
US laws only apply to events within US jurisdiction.
A company operating from New Zealand does NOT fall under US jurisdiction.
What you're implying, would make Saudi Arabian law enforceable in the US. I'd like to see someone being extradited to SA from the US for being pro-democracy, something which apparently gets you crucified (literally) in SA.
Unless of course, you're attempting to imply that US law should be enforceable everywhere else, but the reverse should not be the case.
The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
> US laws only apply to events within US jurisdiction.
> A company operating from New Zealand does NOT fall under US jurisdiction.
Extradition is governed by treaties, which are law in both countries. They tend to be either list type, which explcitly list extradictable offenses, or "common criminality" type, in which someone guilty of a crime can be extradicted if it's a crime in BOTH countries.
The US - New Zealand treaty, which is law in New Zealand, is the list type. It says people can be extradited for specific acts such as "receiving or transporting unlawfully obtained money". (That one applies, via the Berne Convention on copy rights.)
> What you're implying, would make Saudi Arabian law enforceable in the US.
No for two reasons. First, there's no US-Saudi extradition treaty. Second, if there were, it would be either a "common criminality" treaty which applies to acts which are criminal IN THE US, or a list type, which lists the acts. Neither applies the law of Saudi Arabia, unless the US has the same law.
> should be enforceable
I'm confused. You started with. "US laws only apply ...", and "does not fall"under the jurisdiction"n making (very incorrect) claims about what the law -is-. Then right at the end you say "should be". Are you talking about what the law -is- or what you think it -should be-?
Actually it's suprisingly common to confuse the two. I very often read people declaring what the law is, and explaining why it should be so. Of course those are two mostly unrelated things. You may have great ideas about what the law -should- be, and it's tempting to forget that has no bearing on what the law actually is.
On that note, my explanation above is concerning what the law is, not what I think I should be. I didn't write the law, I only read it.