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.
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.
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...
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.
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.