Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited, Rules A New Zealand Court (reuters.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited, Rules A New Zealand Court (reuters.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday February 19, 2017 @05:34PM from the residency-shmesidency dept.

Kim Dotcom -- and Megaupload's programmers Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk, as well as its advertising manager Finn Batato -- could soon be in a U.S. courtroom. A New Zealand judge just ruled they can all be extradited to the U.S. An anonymous reader quotes Reuters: The Auckland High Court upheld the decision by a lower court in 2015 on 13 counts, including allegations of conspiracy to commit racketeering, copyright infringement, money laundering and wire fraud, although it described that decision as "flawed" in several areas. Dotcom's lawyer Ron Mansfield said in a statement the decision was "extremely disappointing" and that Dotcom would appeal to New Zealand's Court of Appeal.

U.S. authorities say Dotcom and three co-accused Megaupload executives cost film studios and record companies more than $500 million and generated more than $175 million by encouraging paying users to store and share copyrighted material. High Court judge Murray Gilbert said that there was no crime for copyright in New Zealand law that would justify extradition but that the Megaupload-founder could be sent to the United States to face allegations of fraud.
"I'm no longer getting extradited for copyright," Dotcom commented on Twitter. "We won on that. I'm now getting extradited for a law that doesn't even apply.

188 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

whose fraud??? by harvey+the+nerd · 2017-02-19 17:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Although I doubt the $500m figure on a competitive bid or such pricing basis, at least they are not quoting billions and trillions....

One of the most aggravating things in the US these days, is fraudulent pricing by companies with industrial strength DC political connections.
1. Re:whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  at least they are not quoting billions and trillions....
  Yet.
  At this point, this case exists solely to justify the MPAA. Online movie piracy harming the industry is a debunked myth. Redbox makes what little profit they can, iTunes has it for the sake of being able to say they have it and Netflix is flat-out giving up on the movie model and making original content.
2. Re:whose fraud??? by BlueStrat · 2017-02-19 18:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Although I doubt the $500m figure on a competitive bid or such pricing basis, at least they are not quoting billions and trillions....
  
  The figures given are meaningless as there's no way to actually know, they're chosen for propaganda value.
  They're going after Kim & co. because they have fewer millions to fight back with and fewer US politicians paid off than YouTube/Google who host far more copyright-violating content than Megaupload. As we've seen demonstrated over and over again, if you've got the money and connections you can get away with anything in the US, the Rule of Law means squat.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
3. Re:whose fraud??? by gl4ss · 2017-02-19 19:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  the system, feds, mpaa and some of the new zealand officials can't just drop the case either now since they are all so deep in it that if the case gets dropped without getting him into a court in usa then they're all in deep doodoo already.
  basically, what MPAA, FBI etc. want is for fatty fat pants to get dragged into a US court and make him do a plea bargain - since otherwise they're on the hook for fucking up the investigation in many shady ways from day 0. someone(mpaa?) pushed them into this years ago now and now they're already so deep in damages and questionable conduit that the real question is under what authority did they even do everything they did.
  like, they don't even want the normal court proceedings - they just want some kind of a plea bargain to get them off the hook. that way it never goes to actual court.
  also - how the fuck do you change the reason for extradition in the middle of extradition hearings anyways?
  if they wanted just an actual court they might just as well have done that inside new zealand.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:whose fraud??? by Opportunist · 2017-02-19 19:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  In the US, the golden rule applies. He with the gold makes the rules.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
5. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  The normal court proceedings? Almost all cases are plea bargained now. Few ever get a jury trial because they are slapped with multiple charges. If they can't get you on this charge then they'll get you on obstruction just for fighting it.
6. Re:whose fraud??? by infolation · 2017-02-19 21:04 · Score: 0
  
  Is the 'Golden Rule' a Donald Trump quote?
7. Re: whose fraud??? by gl4ss · 2017-02-19 21:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  thats exactly the thing why they want it in USA rather than NZ.
  because it no longer matters in USA if you can win in court because YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
  plea bargains are such bullshit in both ways. it's a travesty.
  for example, there's far more murders in usa than there are convicted murderers - and same applies to all other kind of cases.
  as if what happened depends on if you plea guilty or not - how the fuck is that even supposed to work? now i'm all right with giving more lenient sentences to people who confess but changing the crime based on if you get a confession or not is a travesty on the world of statistics.. and well, morals too.
  not to mention of course that you're not supposed to even get a more lenient sentence for confessing because you're not supposed to witness against yourself in the first place.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
8. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 21:37 · Score: 0
  
  Should just be like Goldman's Cohn and Mnuchin, break the law then settle for a fraction. Fleece the taxpayer for 530 $1-2billion mortgage backed securities (yes half a trillion), then pay a $2-3billion fine after making hundreds of billions. http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/senate-specifics-on-why-goldman-sachs-gary-cohn-should-not-have-a-role-in-the-u-s-government/
9. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  Why make billions when you can make ... millions
10. Re: whose fraud??? by sg_oneill · 2017-02-20 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  for example, there's far more murders in usa than there are convicted murderers - and same applies to all other kind of cases.
  Theres also an inverse at play with this shocker as well.
  Cop decides he's certain the husband killed the wife. No evidence, just "He seems the sort". So they they tell the guy "We're going to get you the death penalty if you dont take the plea bargain". The husband may well be innocent, but at this point it doesnt matter anymore. He's fucking terrified of spending 10 years in solitary hell followed a visit with the grim reaper, so he takes the plea bargain, Manslaughter and fifteen years , out in ten, to save his own life.
  And meanwhile the murderer got off scot free, because some other poor sap took the fall.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
11. Re:whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 00:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The bottom line is if you steal from US companies, or facilitate theft, of millions of dollars (it is at least that) in a country with an extradition agreement to the US (or a small country that the US is willing to hurt to get you), prepare to get extradited. I am not sure what the surprise is. On a moral level, Kim knew he was stealing from copyright holders, and making millions doing it. With the advent of the internet, you can commit a crime in a foreign country without physically being there, and if the laws are reasonable or similar to the country you are in, or the country has any conditions mentioned above, it is not a great shock that you will get extradited.
  People on Slashdot are constantly pissing and moaning about copyright, and while I agree that copyright duration is too long, this is not even that. Kim Dotcom knowingly and willingly facilitated people downloading newly released movies, software, etc. and ignored requests to take down infringing material (and that is the key difference with YouTube). I know it is not a popular opinion to have on Slashdot, but consider that without copyright we would not be able to have professional actors or musicians or authors among others. The key principles of copyright were violated in this case and we should protect those from violation on the net.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
12. Re:whose fraud??? by The+Grassy+Knoll · 2017-02-20 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, it's from the comic strip "The Wizard of Id" some time in the 60s
  
  --
  They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
13. Re: whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that plea bargaining is problematic, as it also leads to massive overcharging (from what a prosecutor knows that they could reasonably get a conviction on) in order to scare the suspect into pleading guilty rather than facing the potential of life in prison for driving a getaway car or some such.
  OTOH, the real world is a lot messier than TV crime shows, and in the real world, unless you have a video tape of the crime being committed or a tape of the suspect confessing to a confidant, or the crime was committed in front of 10 people in broad daylight after the suspect yells "hey look imma commit a crime" our justice system is imperfect based on imperfect knowledge. This is just the nature of reality. If you can get a criminal that you suspect of committing a crime to confess to the crime that you as a prosecutor are confident beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed, then it saves the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum and reduces the burden on the justice system. There are other, better ways to unburden the justice system for the price of a rope noose or a bullet (execute convicted murderers, attempted murderers, violent rapists, child molesters, etc like we used to do, but that is a discussion for another day.)
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
14. Re:whose fraud??? by JonnyCalcutta · 2017-02-20 01:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I know it is not a popular opinion to have on Slashdot, but consider that without copyright we would not be able to have professional actors or musicians or authors among others.
  Says you. I kind of agree with the implication that Kim knew he was on shaky legal ground and didn't really give a shit, but your assertion here is just not true - or you are at least going to have to back it up with something. People would still need actors and musicians, with or without copyright. Plenty of professional musicians make a living playing out of copyright music (most classical music). Most actors are reading someone else's words.
  Perhaps you meant that music, TV and books might not exist? But even that isn't true - things would just work differently. Maybe it would be better. Maybe more people could make a living rather than those at the top taking the biggest slice (I don't know, when have we ever been offered another way). The value just wouldn't be in the 'creation process' anymore - it would be elsewhere in the chain.
15. Re:whose fraud??? by crashumbc · 2017-02-20 01:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Out of curiosity, how do you feel about "bong" shops? Does anyone actually believe someone is going to smoke tobacco in a water bong? At least, 99% of the time anyway. But yet "head shops" are legal. Why is "copyrighted" material special? Why does it get protection of "could be used for.."
  Disclaimer: yes I know weed is now "legal" many places, but the analogy still holds.
16. Re:whose fraud??? by currently_awake · 2017-02-20 02:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It would be easier to feel sympathy or empathy for the copyright cartels if they didn't keep altering the deal (copyright duration and punishments, with no new benefits to us as compensation). We can't even pray they don't alter the deal further, as we know they will.
17. Re:whose fraud??? by currently_awake · 2017-02-20 02:18 · Score: 2
  
  Books, music, and plays existed prior to copyright. Some rather famous stuff was written without having to offer eternal royalties as payment. They just got paid for live performances. Note that most curren musicians make most of their money from live performances. The copyright cartels ensure they make little or no revenue from CD's or streaming.
18. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Morality? Really? You are trying to use that? Copyright doesn't exist for moral reasons. MPAA doesn't sue for moral reasons. Why is it that when companies screw customers, it is just business, but when customers don't give companies more money, it is immoral? Serious question you should ask yourself.
19. Re:whose fraud??? by wvmarle · 2017-02-20 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  without copyright we would not be able to have professional actors or musicians or authors among others.
  So, do you believe that without copyright Shakespeare wouldn't have written his plays, and there wouldn't have been professional actors to play them for him? Or that Mozart wouldn't have written his music, and there wouldn't have been professional musicians to play it for him?
20. Re:whose fraud??? by Solandri · 2017-02-20 03:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's not really true in this case. The music industry's U.S. revenue was $7 billion in 2015. The TV and movie industry's revenue was $131 billion in 2014 So about $140 billion total.
  
  U.S. ISP revenue was $97 billion in 2016. The U.S. consumer electronics industry revenue is over $200 billion. The Internet publishing, broadcasting, and search industry's revenue was about $110 billion in 2014. Total is over $400 billion. Nearly 3x bigger than music, movies, and TV. Yet they're made to bend over and comply with the wishes of the studios. The tail is literally wagging the dog.
  
  It already destroyed Sony's audio electronics division. Sony was the top name in audio equipment in the 1970s and 1980s. Then in 1987 they acquired CBS records and renamed it Sony Music Entertainment. SME coexisted with Sony Electronics until 1998, when the MP3 player came to market. Sony Electronics came up with an MP3 player, but SME forced them to add DRM to it. Customers avoided it because it was impossible to take their existing CDs and simply copy the music over to a Sony MP3 player.
  
  Sony's 1998 revenue was 1,128 billion Yen for the audio division (page 14), 660 billion Yen for the music division (page 15).
  
  Their 2000 revenue was 935 billion Yen for the audio division (page 47), 709 billion Yen for the music division (page 498).
  
  By 2003 their audio sales had atrophied to 683 billion Yen (page 20), vs 636 billion Yen in music sales (page 18). Music sales were about the same as 1998, but their audio electronics sales had been cut nearly in half because of SME demanding their products comply with their copyright protection requirements. (In 2004 their music division began a joint venture with BMG, so financials are not comparable from then on.)
21. Re:whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Look into the case. His company tried to remove the infringing material and was ordered to leave it up to facilitate an ongoing investigation. Complying with the DMCA was always the intent, the infringing they are seeking legal action against comes from a setup created by the people doing the prosecuting.
  All of this immediately followed Megaupload's public support of the end of SOPA, or CISPA, or whatever round of anti corporate owned propaganda law that instance was - the opposition that sparked a popularized "we are the world" multi artist song to raise awareness.
  The prosecution of Dotcom is a punishment. US government employees are being used as hired thugs for corporate retribution. The FBI even planned out the raid on Dotcom's home on the other side of the world - a violent door kicking US style attack that New Zealand's President had to apologize for becase that kind of heavy handed attack is not as not and hasn't since been a policy of NZ law enforcement... it's normal for the US LEOs that planned out and attended the attack though.
  I know it might not be popular, but being aware of the facts helps understand the bias - in this case the people behind the money that pays for harassment of a person that is easily hated but is not guilty of the crimes created to harm him.
22. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  thats exactly the thing why they want it in USA rather than NZ.
  because it no longer matters in USA if you can win in court because YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
  plea bargains are such bullshit in both ways. it's a travesty.
  for example, there's far more murders in usa than there are convicted murderers - and same applies to all other kind of cases.
  as if what happened depends on if you plea guilty or not - how the fuck is that even supposed to work? now i'm all right with giving more lenient sentences to people who confess but changing the crime based on if you get a confession or not is a travesty on the world of statistics.. and well, morals too.
  not to mention of course that you're not supposed to even get a more lenient sentence for confessing because you're not supposed to witness against yourself in the first place.
  Sadly, you are very right. There is no longer a "right to trial" at a practical level. Over 90% of criminal cases are plea bargained, in part because it is legal for the system to threaten you with legally sound but not realistic charges. Look at Aaron, if the feds had wanted to they could separate every single thing he downloaded into a unique charge, all with a 5 year sentence maximum. They chose 6 and got him to kill himself, and no one that has power to alter the system gives a damn. The people certainly cannot change the system right now. Our legal system is so bloated we don't even know how many laws we have, we don't require police to understand and thoroughly know the laws they uphold (seriously, "I did not know it wasn't illegal to arrest person for X has been a defense), and courts can set their own fees and requirements. This means anywhere you go in the US you can pay different court fees for the same filings and have to have different documents. All of this adds up to making it unlikely most would be willing to gamble their lives in USA's courts and horribly long jail times. I mean, we give, at a federal level so no parole/probation, life sentences for non-violent crimes, such as for a repeat offender, stealing gasoline. That is right, life sentence unless pardoned by president, for stealing gas. I don't care what the person did before that, stealing gas should never result in a life sentence.
  I don't agree with your last statement. I fully agree with lenient sentencing for people that confess because it saves society a lot of money and sometimes help police with investigations or procedure changes (like how did the prisoner escape), and can bring a lot of peace to victims that may be stuck without the full details otherwise. Finally, it is not that you are not supposed to be a witness to yourself, it is that the government cannot force you to be a witness to yourself.
  Justice is, just as the statues' show, blind, but apparently she also has no fucking clue what the goddamn balance means.
23. Re:whose fraud??? by Aighearach · 2017-02-20 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  Plenty of professional musicians make a living playing out of copyright music (most classical music).
  Musicians make money mostly from performance of music. Record labels make money from the selling and playing of recorded music, that's not even the musician's part of the pie.
24. Re:whose fraud??? by amiga3D · 2017-02-20 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  My favorite. It warped my upbringing as a child. I fondly remember Sir Rodney yelling "Halt, or I'll shoot!" then the twang of the bow and his squire saying "Lucky for you he halted or you would have missed." Such a fun read on Sunday morning.
25. Re: whose fraud??? by Aighearach · 2017-02-20 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  You have to be smart enough not to lie, that's all. If you're at least that smart, then none of that situation touches you.
  If you're willing to lie, under oath, not even to defend yourself but to implicate yourself, there is nothing that the Court can really do to stop you from coming to an agreement with the prosecutor that sends you away.
  Yes, it is a problem for dishonest idiots. But it can be solved very easily on an individual basis.
26. Re:whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  One of the most aggravating things in the US these days, is fraudulent pricing by companies with industrial strength DC political connections.
  CenturyLink is one such criminal organization.
27. Re:whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  The benefit to the public is the massive amount of copyrighted material available for a tiny fraction of your annual income. That was always to goal of copyright, to make it lucrative such that more people could engage in the creative process, and judging by quantity and quality, the US outputs more music of nearly all genre, more movies, more TV episodes, a ton of new books etc every year than any other country.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
28. Re:whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yes they did. Prior to copyright, creating art cost you huge amounts of money (relatively) and was created exclusively for the rich. Copyright has allowed for the democratization of art, which is a good thing. These days virtually any work is available to the consumer for $10-$25.
  Books used to be copied by hand, making the physical work of copying them the added value and the base cost of a book was often multiple times your annual income. If you had a book it was a family Bible passed down through generations. Most authors had to be independently wealthy or be sponsored by the church or state in order to write. Because of this most books were religious or functional in nature. With the advent of the printing press, it was possible to cheaply copy books, and copyright was used to encourage the creation of new works for profit. In the modern age we have literally millions of books created in the last 100 years alone.
  Music, plays and artworks all existed before copyright, and were almost exclusively created by artists sponsored by a monarch or extremely rich individual, with the work being hoarded by them and protected by the difficulty involved in producing or copying it. Copyright allowed for the democratization of art, allowing thousands of middle class citizens to each contribute a little to an artist's livelihood and middle class citizen could make a reasonable income as a successful artist.
  With the digital age and internet, we are again experiencing a revolution in how much it costs to create music for example, as well as how easy it is to distribute said music. The RIAA and their ilk are a dying vestige from a bygone era, but they neither own copyright nor was it created for them. They served a purpose when it cost tens of thousands of dollars to record and publish music. I think it would be a great idea as a country if we permanently tied copyright (and patents for that mater) to the creators, and let the creators own them for their life or 30 years, whichever is longer, and limited any company to exclusive ownership rights for 7 years maximum, after which time the rights revert back to the creators to redistribute or re-license, but that is a topic for another discussion.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
29. Re:whose fraud??? by dryeo · 2017-02-20 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  No, the goal of copyright, at least in the English speaking part of the world, was, to quote the long title of the first modern copyright act,
  
  An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
  This is also reflected in the American Constitution, where the Arts & Sciences at the time meant education.
  The lengths of copyright was also much shorter, but long enough for creators to recoup their time.
  Meanwhile, right from the beginning, the Stationers or Publishers, were pushing for infinite copyright, claiming it was for the artists that they paid a pittance to for rights. They fought in the courts when the first copyrights ended and the courts ruled that copyright is not a common law right, so they bribed the legislatures to steal from the public domain.
  Most all that massive amount of copyrighted material that you mention is supposed to be in the public domain to advance learning and 14-28 years is plenty enough time for the artists and publishers to make their money.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
30. Re:whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  But it can and should be. The record labels traditionally put up tens of thousands of dollars for the recording studio and to launch the music, but with the digital age, you can have a comparable in home studio for a few thousand and digital distribution channels essentially cost you nothing. The record labels are slowly dying and eventually the digital distribution of music will net more money for artists, especially if they would wise up and form a guild like the SAG or some such, where they could force the digital distribution channels to take a reasonable profit and give the rest back to the artist. It would also be useful to get congress to limit the record labels to a statutory duration of ownership of music, such that regardless of what contracts were signed, after a term of 7 years or something from signing any contract that assigns copyright, the record label's claim on the music expires and the rights revert back the artists. This would circumvent abusive contracts while giving the record labels plenty of time to make a profit.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
31. Re:whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  The question you should ask yourself is why did Shakespeare write his plays? Let me tell you: he wrote them under the sponsorship of a monarch. If you are fine with all of your art being created for a few rich rulers, that was the system we had before copyright... I prefer my art to be created for me and cater to my tastes, which is what copyright allows.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
32. Re:whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Megaupload was well known all across the web. Pretty much everyone here on slashdot knows what it was. I don't care what Dotcom's lawyers said in court, they were always an illegal file sharing business and probably 95% of their bandwidth was illegal file sharing. That there was one instance where someone was trying to honeypot illegal downloaders using Megaupload does not justify all the rest of megaupload's behavior.
  The purpose of rapid entry raids is to prevent the suspect from reacting, either by destroying evidence or going for a weapon. I am glad that NZ is such a great, peaceful place where you never have any dangerous criminals, but that is why it is used, and most of the time it is safer for everyone involved.
  I am aware of the facts, you might want to try to get yours other places besides just Kim Dotcom's lawyers...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
33. Re:whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Except the vast majority of us don't have monarchs to please anymore. Your comparison is a century old at least.
  I also love how you try to assert that despite the differences between your two time periods, we would still end up back at a point of works made only for the rich.
  Compared to the time when copyright was first implemented, we have gained the following abilities:
  1. Previously, copying a work was a specialized and manual process that required a significant amount of time and money to be invested to create a small set of copies. Only skilled people could do it, and only printed materials could be copied. (Audio and Video recordings did not exist yet.) Today, perfect copies of anything that copyright applies to can be made near instantaneously at the push of a button by anyone for practically nothing.
  2. Previously, the best and most reliable way to inform others about a new work was to get on a horse and go there in person yourself to promote the work. An act that once again required a huge time and financial investment to accomplish, with ever increasing costs the further you had to go to do so. Today, you can do it anywhere in the world at the push of a button. Whether it's a poster on a website, a post to social media pointing to a you tube trailer, or a teleconferencing call via skype / facetime, it costs practically nothing compared to what it did previously, and in some cases it may "go viral" which means free advertising for you.
  3. Previously, the time it took to get a return on the above investments, was significant. Collecting the royalties from sellers and getting them to the person who held the copyright was a time consuming task. Each payment had to be manually tracked (no PoS system to perform accounting for you), each copy inventoried (no computer to track them for you), people sent out to collect the royalties (no electronic banking to do it automatically), and the dispersal of the collected funds to the copyright holder (once again no easy way to track the individual(s) down or to notify them of a royalty payment being manually delivered.) Never mind the security apparatus that was required for this, or the fact you had to pay for people's well being while doing it. (Food, shelter, medical treatment, etc.) Today, it's all done seamlessly and near instantaneously via computers.
  Today, it's easier than ever for a new creator to get their work out to the public. It's even easier for the public to provide input and feedback based on that work. (Both for and against it.) The cost has decreased dramatically, and even people who have full time jobs can create something as a hobby and make a career out of it. (For example: Youtube, twitch, etc. All of which hand out the crap for free to the public.(With massive amounts of advertising, I'll admit.)) Heck I'd imagine that some people would be willing to pay for it directly given the option and some actually do. (See also services like Patreon.) Heck we've even had entire video games (an art form that requires all classical forms of art (writing, graphical design, music, choreography, etc.) and would have been unthinkable in terms of cost and time investment previously) produced by crowd-sourcing. Hell even just pitching an idea is easier today, with near instant feedback from people around the world on both social media, online chats, message boards, and yes even comment sections like this one.
  Your comparison just doesn't hold water today. Practically every reason that copyright was necessary back when it was first created is no longer an issue today. Even more so when the rich and powerful middlemen of old, are demanding that their power over the public (duration of copyright, penalties for infringement, what counts as copyrightable material, the ability to veto or control new technologies, etc.) be increased! Some of that isn't even a power that they have currently. Yet they demand it, with no additional compensation to the public. No, creating more works is not good enough at this point. See above for why.
34. Re:whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Talking about the shady deals the thing about this case that has always seemed intriguing is the involvement of the spy agencies during the investigation - can someone, anyone tell one good reason why any nations spy agencies need to be involved in a simple case of copyright infringement worth a gross value of 500 million. This whole thing does not add up, the illegal confiscation of the computer systems by spys these guys wanted to shut something down, there was something on those servers which they did not want found, the rest is just a smoke screen.
35. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  Legally in many countries. It is a corruption of Justice.
36. Re:whose fraud??? by youngone · 2017-02-20 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, the golden rule applies. He with the gold makes the rules.
  Quite true, but luckily for Kim he's spending his time and money in New Zealand courts. Also luckily for Kim, New Zealand judges tend to be a pretty independent lot, and while I'm sure the US is putting huge pressure on the New Zealand Government, the judiciary here are quite capable of telling the Government to mind their own business.
  As an aside, I have seen this in person. At a social function years ago, a District Court judge (I think, certainly a judge of one type or another) called the former Prime Minister who was also a guest a "backstabbing cunt" and threatened to break his nose.
  They were seperated and the judge was poured into a taxi. No-one seemed to know what the fight was about, but there was a fair bit of anger involved.
37. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 13:21 · Score: 0
  
  You have to be smart enough not to lie, that's all. If you're at least that smart, then none of that situation touches you.
  Holy crap, do you really believe that the "truth" has anything to do with it?
  It's about lawyers having a pissing competition while stretching things out to get the most money from the situation, and the court system has fuck all to do with "justice". Pray you don't find out the hard way.
38. Re:whose fraud??? by countach · 2017-02-21 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  "On a moral level, Kim knew he was stealing from copyright holders, and making millions doing it."
  How is this different to YouTube or DropBox or iCloud or Facebook?
39. Re:whose fraud??? by painandgreed · 2017-02-21 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of professional musicians make a living playing out of copyright music (most classical music).
  Musicians make money mostly from performance of music. Record labels make money from the selling and playing of recorded music, that's not even the musician's part of the pie.
  (Disclaimer: anecdotal story) Apparently it is if they are serious about it. I'm not a musician but lots of my friends are or work in music industry somehow, and I ended up at a dinner with them and a friend who was from out of town performing (not claiming that's not part of the picture for various reasons) who had a alt college band back in the 80's and the discussion got around to this. The take away quote was "any musician that assumes that the music industry isn't about licensing is just kidding themselves" to which everybody agreed. Basically, the licensing deal for a commercial, movie, video game, or otherwise use of a song can greatly outweigh any other income. People are out there collecting that money whether the artists are aware of it or not. It's apparently all about getting things set up so that the artists can actually take advantage of it."
40. Re:whose fraud??? by nut · 2017-02-21 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  ... and ignored requests to take down infringing material ...
  Bullshit there. Megaupload removed every link to infringing material where notice was given that it was infringing copyright in accordance with the DMCA. They were in fact very careful to comply with the DMCA. What they didn't do was remove links to the same material that weren't in the notice.
  Megaupload hashed every file and if more than one person uploaded the same file, they only stored it once and linked both accounts to the same file. So their approach makes sense - if Peter and Paul both upload the same file and Peter is violating copyright it doesn't mean Paul is also (he may even be the creator.)
  In real life of course there are often many violators posting the same file, and Megaupload were well aware that piracy was a huge driver of their success. Nevertheless, your statement is factually incorrect.
  
  --
  Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
41. Re:whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  DRM is killing music - I'm still boycotting Sony for their rootkit sham, and advising others including my customers to boycott Sony products.
42. Re:whose fraud??? by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-21 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  ... By not removing the ACTUAL DAMN FILE, just a link to it, they failed to comply with the DMCA request, which requires deletion of all files associated with the request, not just links. So no, thanks for playing, but that is not DMCA compliance and I was quite correct in my assertion.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
43. Re:whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting points except the one about copyright going away. We would still have actors and musicians practicing their craft because a lot of them only do it for the joy of playing and most people support the things they really enjoy. Most of the popular music industry today is about image and nothing to do with the music itself so their money would likely be safe as well.
44. Re: whose fraud??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  The New Zealand appellate courts are more likely to be sympathetic to Dotcom than you might think.
  http://www.kim.com/whitepaper.pdf
  Just like anything you find on the net, take it with a grain of salt.
  But if you really want to be sure of your opinions, take a good couple of hours.
  It's NOT about Kim.
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 17:42 · Score: 1

He's still got two more courts to go yet (Appeals and Supreme). Assuming he's still got enough of cash squirrelled away this circus will go on for a few more years yet.
1. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  He's has plenty of cash still, but his accounts have been locked down by the US because he's a "fugitive".
  He's going to lose, when the US wants someone, they get them.
2. Re: Meh by infolation · 2017-02-19 21:05 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  In the meantime Dotcom vs Trump should be an entertaining media battle of egos.
3. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  US only gets what it wants with weak countries like NZ.
Question for you file sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 17:47 · Score: 1

One of the common justifications for illegal filesharing given here is that the record companies (studios, publishers) etc are ripping off the talent, and that the talent typically makes peanuts for their the work. Therefore filesharing is really an act taken against, or in indifference to, the greedy capitalists who were at best passive participants in the creative act.
Suppose the creative talent(s) - the band in the case of an audio recording, the author(s) in the case of a textbook, the director and stars of a Hollywood film - communicated in unambiguous terms that they wanted pirating of their work to stop. Would that cause you to delete the files you had and/or desist on illegally downloading new copies of that particular artists' work?
1. Re:Question for you file sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 17:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. But not where I already legally own vinyl & CDs of those same works, which is ~2/3rds of my collection
2. Re: Question for you file sharers by aussie_a · 2017-02-19 18:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure. As soon as the bought and paid for copyright lengths are repealed and the public are compensated for the gross bribery that took place.
3. Re:Question for you file sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 18:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I would. I've never heard Metallica again.
4. Re:Question for you file sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 19:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's not how I justify my "illegal" filesharing. I download pirated copies of music and movies because I already paid their license fee - on LP, cassette, VHS, and DVD. If they were to offer a heavily discounted upgrade price for converting from (say) cassette to FLAC/MP3, like software companies offer, I'd gladly pay it. But since they keep insisting we're buying a license, not a product, I'm just holding them to their word and using my previously-purchased license to listen to the music or watch the movie on modern devices.
5. Re:Question for you file sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 22:58 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, you *AA shill.
  > Suppose the creative talent(s) - the band in the case of an audio recording [...]
  HA, HA, HA.
  Do you know why I don't "do" filesharing? Because the successful crap out there is so abysmally bad that I wouldn't listen or watch *even if I were paid to*
  What do I care, say, that Richard Gere (just a placeholder, mind you) wished? I don't want to *see* any film with him. What do I care what Rihanna wishes? Her noise is so abject I don't care.
  Now if there's some indy stuff I like: I BUY THEIR CD/DVD, whatever.
  Why do I think this pirating is a good thing anyway? Because perhaps it helps to bring down this overinflated building made of shit and rotten beams (the sight and stink won't be pretty, I guess).
6. Re:Question for you file sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the problem here is that Kim Dotcom is not a "file sharer", he was running a legitimate website, insofar as Youtube or Dropbox are legitimate websites. The problem is he wasn't as politically connected as Google, and especially as Mega isn't a US company, they want to drag him over the coals for challenging Google's supremacy.
7. Re:Question for you file sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  But since they keep insisting we're buying a license, not a product, I'm just holding them to their word and using my previously-purchased license to listen to the music or watch the movie on modern devices.
  That's a big part of the problem: they insist on having it both ways. When you buy the media, they claim that you're licensing the product. When your media degrades or breaks or if you want to upgrade to a newer format, tough titties; if you want new media you need to pay for a new proudct. By rights, your license should entitle you to new media at a significantly reduced price, but no...
8. Re:Question for you file sharers by amiga3D · 2017-02-20 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Digital has solved this for the future. Once you have music in digital format it's yours for perpetuity. I don't mind buying music from a new artist but I do have a problem with the extended range of copyright. It's messing the system up too. I often see stories where someone is sued because a couple of lines uses the same lick from another song 40 years ago. That's fucking crazy. How do you write music when you have to check millions of songs over decades to make sure you haven't accidentally gotten a few lines of music that's been done before?
9. Re:Question for you file sharers by Ze+Wah · 2017-02-20 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  There was a case here in Australia where a someone bought the copyright to the Australia song "Kookaburra" from the deceased writer's estate. The song was originally written by a school teacher for the girl guides in 1932.
  
  They then proceeded to sue the band Men at Work for copyright infringement on a flute line in their song "Land Down Under" which supposedly shared similarities. They were ordered to back pay royalties for the song.
  
  The guy who played the flute riff in the song ended up committing suicide some time after.
  There is a news article about it here
10. Re:Question for you file sharers by amiga3D · 2017-02-21 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  A perfect example.
Bad Decisions by muphin · 2017-02-19 17:53 · Score: 1, Informative

They are going after pirates and Kim, cause they loose hundreds of millions on their bad decisions to make crappy movies.

--
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
1. Re: Bad Decisions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  So they just have too make great movies all the time! Awesome solution!
  I wonder why nobody thought about that?!!!??? Genius!
2. Re: Bad Decisions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  Oh I have the solution to world peace right here!
  It's that countries should not go to wars!
3. Re:Bad Decisions by AmiMoJo · 2017-02-19 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Last year was another good one for Hollywood, despite numerous flops.
  The goal here is to further criminalise copyright infringement. The extradition is actually for conspiracy to defraud. That's how they go after people they don't like, they manufacture criminal charges.
  It's pointless now, the service is long gone, many others have taken its place, serious pirates are all on VPNs. The only thing they stand to gain is to demonstrate that US law is global law and anyone who annoys a large corporation must have broken some law.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Bad Decisions by currently_awake · 2017-02-20 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose is to prove that they can milk copyrights for all eternity. If your business plan was based on milking virtual assets you'd do everything you could to protect those money making assets too.
Why this is wrong: by Aaron+B+Lingwood · 2017-02-19 18:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

A government, particularly one that is elected by the people, exists for the purpose of managing systems to improve the entities that they are governing and to protect the constituents.
Whether or not Kim Dotcom is likely innocent or guilty, this finding will neither improve NZ and completely fails in protecting at least one of its' citizens.
Despite any extradition treaty, NZ must protect their citizens.
Australia is guilty of similar neglect with the lack of assistance to Assange. Our government does not represent Australia or Australians and all policies are either self-serving or to the benefit of another nation (US & UK). There is continuous dumbing-down of political matters to the extent that constituents no longer identify treason when it is shoved in their face.

--
[Rent This Space]
1. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 18:56 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  How are they supposed to assist Assange? he hasn't been charged with anything and to be honest he has gone from a useful crusader to just being a total twat, let him burn. As for dotcom, he aint no NZ citizen so how are they failing to protect a NZ citizen? he is a resident.
2. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  Some people are more equal than others, eh?
  Fuck right off with your "not a citizen" bullshit. anyone who has been granted entry to a country legitimately should hold equal legal standing.
3. Re:Why this is wrong: by taustin · 2017-02-19 19:37 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Whether or not Kim Dotcom is likely innocent or guilty, this finding will neither improve NZ and completely fails in protecting at least one of its' citizens.
  Neither will pissing off the United States, so I think the situation might be a bit more complicated than your fifth grade civics class suggests.
  It's best to leave grown up things to grown up.
4. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 19:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Except he lied on his recedancy application about not having any criminal conviction so should not of even been allowed in.
5. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 19:55 · Score: 0
  
  Citizens can vote, non citizens usually cannot. You think this should change?
6. Re: Why this is wrong: by DMJC · 2017-02-19 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  When it comes to what MY government does. You're goddamn right Citizens should have more rights. The Government exists to serve those who elected it. Everyone else can get in the back of the line behind us. That includes Americans and everyone else.
7. Re:Why this is wrong: by DMJC · 2017-02-19 20:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  We control 1/3rd of the World's Uranium supply here in Australia, with some of the largest deposits in the world in the middle of our continent. Why should we have to bend over for anybody? We are legally able to pursue a nuclear weapons program as we conducted nuclear testing in the 1950s and the NPT specifically has an exception for countries that conducted testing before the treaty was signed. Now I am definitely not saying that Australia will go down that path. But personally, if it gets us free of US overreach into our internal affairs then hell yes that's a good thing. America is probably going to get Australia dragged into a war with China over issues which most people within Australia don't/won't want to understand. Why should we bleed and die to protect American corporate profits? We should be standing on our own two feet and a nuclear shield would be an excellent way to make both China and the US take Australia more seriously. We are happy to trade peacefully with the world but we shouldn't be rushing to get involved in American follies. Iraq showed us that US leadership is capable of dangerous incompetence and Trump is hammering that home even more. A protectionist America is dangerous for the Australian economy. We are a middle power, we cannot become a protectionist nation. We must trade with the world, our needs and America's needs have begun to diverge.
8. Re:Why this is wrong: by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-02-19 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Treaties that align laws governing stuff like copyrights and extradition are part of the system protecting the NZ constituents. If someone in the USA pirated content of a NZ rights holder, then these treaties presumably ensure that the rights holder has some recourse. Whether NZ got a good deal in this case is another matter. IIRC NZ used to be fairly lenient on pirates since they got hosed on a regular basis with region locking.
  
  But the piracy thing apparently didn't stick, or it's not enough to warrant extradition. So they added fraud. What is that allegation actually based on? Also I recall something from rules on extradition treaties in my own country, which say if you're being extradited for crime A, a condition of that extradition is that you're not tried for crime B as well. How does that work in NZ?
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
9. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  Your government hopefully realizes that your country's well-being is dictated by power equilibriums (equilibria?) that must be taken into account. Pissing off big powers may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but it won't be good for your country. Be glad your elected representatives know that.
10. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up Aussie. You WILL fight and die for America, whether you want to or not!!!
11. Re: Why this is wrong: by gravewax · 2017-02-19 20:53 · Score: 2
  
  he lied to get residency and think you will find very few people believe their government should be spending taxpayer money defending arseholes like him.
12. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 20:59 · Score: 0
  
  no where in the world is this true, nor will it ever be. governments aren't just going to start paying to defend any criminal that lies their way into a country. Let his country of citizenship defend him. he is their criminal.
13. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 21:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  NZ should take the same approach as the USA, and give the US the middle finger.
  The US will not even extradite murderers
  http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89593559/The-case-of-the-bullet-fired-in-US-that-killed-a-teenager-in-Mexico
  Germany (where Kim Dotcom comes from) takes a different position to shooting innocents
  http://www.rferl.org/a/1084033.html
14. Re:Why this is wrong: by Goaway · 2017-02-19 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  Australia is guilty of similar neglect with the lack of assistance to Assange.
  Help him with what, exactly? The man is on the run from a rape accusation. I don't know of many countries that will help you out with that.
15. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  France, I think, will not extradite one of its own citizens.
16. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  > Despite any extradition treaty, NZ must protect their citizens.
  So cute... Protect, with abo magick spells, I guess? The kiwi had an airforce (about 2 dozen low-end jetfighters of the A4 and MB-339 types). They disbanded that circa 2005 to spend more on social security. They used to have a (smallish) navy that was sunk to create artifical reefs for coral tree hugging. Now their defence hinges on a few platoons of conscripted were-sheep and a small midget commando unit of hairy-feet hobbits...
  A single USMC squad in one of their swimming tanks would conquer NZ in two afternoons (one for the southern island and one for the northern island).
17. Re: Why this is wrong: by Cederic · 2017-02-19 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Pissing off the US for refusing to extradite someone? Ok, there was Panama but the US aren't going to invade a first world country over that.
  Frostiness, sure. But I'd rather have that than my government rolling over and shipping people over there to suffer the travesty they call justice.
18. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  It's nice to know that not everyone in Australia is a Marxist, feminist cuck yet and there's still some hard nuts around.
  The rest of us here thought it was sure headed that way when you got rid of Tony Abbott as your leader.
19. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Might makes right. Get over it.
20. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah I agree and disagree.. the reason why we didn't get nuclear weapons is because America came to us and said, we'll scratch your back if you don't start a nuclear arms race in the south pacific (indonesia, malaysia, etc). Part of the agreement was that we got to keep the nuclear facility at lucas heights, so in the event that we'd change our minds, we could still pursue it.
21. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like someone just took freshman philosophy!
22. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  ... Tony Abbott as your leader.
  
  He was an effective although unfriendly politician when he wasn't spouting Republication party ideology, or sucking-up to David Cameron. In a near-socialist country, that cost him a lot.
  
  ... some hard nuts around.
  
  In the 1950s, Australia had a nuclear program, a space program, a film industry (which would be revived in the 1980s and sick into obscurity despite its technical excellence). The country was on track to be a world leader. Then the economic boom ended (Sugar, wheat and wool for Australia) and we've been obeying the USA ever since.
  
  A protectionist America is dangerous ...
  
  World police kickbacks and demand for the Greenback are keeping the USA afloat at the moment. Sure, losing Intel Corp. and a few others would hurt, plus this world lives or dies on creating a new world police but now, the world is small enough to survive without the USA. That's why China has returned to being an expansionist empire.
23. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  I am surprised the death rate in windsor canada is so low when they are within range of stray shots from detroit...
24. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  So cute... Protecting a citizen means fighting a physical war with another country's army. I don't really mean cute. I mean you are a fool. It takes a complete moron to think "protect" as it applies to court proceedings means "army fighting." Seriously - what are you doing on this site? you need to be on reddit. Must have an iq above yours to enter.
25. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sniff sniff... he picked on Hillary. What a twat!
26. Re:Why this is wrong: by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 01:44 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Actually, the citizens of NZ and AU greatly benefit from good relations with the US. Consider what would happen if the US blocked all trading between the US and those states. What would happen to their economies? How many popular movies, games and software come from the US, not to mention physical goods from US companies? Consider if the US pulled all of our carrier groups back to US assets. What would happen between NZ and AU and China? I hope you can speak Mandarin, with your large amount of desirable real estate (Australia) and tiny population/military (24M people and #23 in military firepower, China and Russia are #2&3 in terms of military and China outnumbers you 58:1, NZ doesn't even make the lists...) Both NZ and AU have a lot to lose pissing of the US over a single citizen who clearly broke laws and committed crimes in the US and basically gave the US the finger when we told him to stop.
  http://www.globalfirepower.com...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Looking at a criminal being extradited to the US who stole and incurred real financial harm in the millions of dollars to a friendly state who provides a massive amount of protection from bad actors like China for many small neighboring countries like AU and NZ as well as providing significant trading benefits is short sighted at best... All the America haters out there, your alternatives are China or Russia depending on where you live. The US has fostered peace, freedom and economic growth for 70 years, both China and Russia have murdered millions of their own citizens in that same time frame (Soviet Russia killed between 15 and 61 million people in that time frame, Communist China killed at least 65 million, and if you think they will treat you better if you side with them over the US, you are sadly mistaken). 5 minutes after the US ceases to be a threat to Chinese world domination, one of the most racist countries on the planet (China) will wipe you out (or enslave you) and resettle some of its population to your cities and towns.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
27. Re: Why this is wrong: by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  See my post above. In a nut shell, a non citizen resident who lied on his application for residency of NZ violated criminal law and stole millions of dollars worth of copyrighted materials and made millions of dollars from what amounts to the worlds policeman and current superpower/main stabilizing force in the world (the US). When the US told him to stop, he gave the US the finger.
  The US could sanction/blockade NZ and destroy their economy for less cost to the US than Dotcom inflicted in copyright infringement. The US could pull back our carrier groups and tell China that it was open season on NZ and the kiwis would all be speaking Mandarin in a week... Obama was a commensurate pussy. I wouldn't put this kind of thing past Trump, even though it might be bad policy long term. The US actively protects many tiny countries like NZ from bad actor states like China. If the US drops it's active protection, very bad things could happen to NZ, with no impact to the US. I suspect that for the next 8 years, poking the big dog in the eye will be a very bad idea.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
28. Re: Why this is wrong: by Cederic · 2017-02-20 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, because Japan, Australia and the UK would sit idly by and not take action to defend New Zealand. Fucking get over yourself.
29. Re:Why this is wrong: by Rob+Lister · 2017-02-20 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  The man is on the run from a rape accusation. I don't know of many countries that will help you out with that.
  Given that the "rape accusation" is utterly fabricated, every country should. The rape issue was created to give cause to punish him for leaking information that hurt the U.S.. An interesting timeline. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
30. Re:Why this is wrong: by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  The America hating around the world has always bothered me with it's irrationality. It is akin to having a bodyguard protect you for decades, get shot and bleed for you, ask only that you treat them with respect, and they pay you (through imbalanced trade deals or outright foreign aid) for the pleasure... The deal the civilized world has had with the US for 70 plus years has been extraordinary. I guess the asshole attitude towards the US has finally reached the US citizens, because now we have Trump, and he seems fixated on making every country pay its own way for defense and on balancing the trade deals. I guess the saying really is true, you don't appreciate how good you had it until you lose it.
  The whole BS about corporate profits is just a canard used by small minds to justify the unjustifiable. US corporate profits are a side effect of accepting people from everywhere into the US and judging based on the worth of their ideas. The US is the largest stabilizing influence in the world. US companies are profitable because we invent and create useful products and services and come up with good ideas. We rightly want to protect those from pirating, just as Australia and every other country does of it's products and ideas. Why should the US be judged on a different basis than your home country when it comes to IP or commercial products?
  A few thoughts on a war with the Chinese:
  The Chinese outnumber you 58:1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  The Chinese are #2 in global firepower, Australia is #23 http://www.globalfirepower.com...
  China is on the other side of the planet from the US (literally). They are just about in your back yard. The Chinese want to become the lone super power and dominate the planet (sorry, that is just the truth). They also believe that they are the master race and everyone else are savages. Does this sound familiar yet, something like Germany and Poland around 1936? http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/...
  If we wind up with a global war with China, it will be because it was inevitable due to their above stated goals (which are no secret). If it happens before they are ready to implement all of the military specs and tech they stole from the US over the last 8 years, so much the better for the world. Your complete ignorance and lack of understanding of geopolitics is breathtaking, considering you would probably be in the first wave of those killed or subjugated and sent to work the the Chinese military factories or concentration camps, while your wives and daughters would be taken as prizes by the 25 million surplus Chinese men who can't find a woman in China, to be used as a (sub human in their culture) substitute... The US could probably win in a prolonged war with China while Australia would cease to exist in a few days without US support.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
31. Re:Why this is wrong: by currently_awake · 2017-02-20 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  People are loyal to their paycheck. Clearly a better offer was made than the one the taxpayers/voters offered.
32. Re: Why this is wrong: by currently_awake · 2017-02-20 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  The USA collapsed the economy of the USSR. On purpose. The American government has worked long and hard on perfecting their weapons of financial warfare.
33. Re:Why this is wrong: by currently_awake · 2017-02-20 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for succinctly listing why Iran should have a nuclear weapons program.
34. Re:Why this is wrong: by Goaway · 2017-02-20 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's a shame there is no legal procedure he could make use of to prove the accusation is fabricated, then, isn't it?
35. Re:Why this is wrong: by meta-monkey · 2017-02-20 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Try that watch when the emus get there first and nuke your ass.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
36. Re:Why this is wrong: by Type44Q · 2017-02-20 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  America is probably going to get Australia dragged into a war with China
  Don't fool yourself; at the highest levels of influence, us Yanks are just as much the bitches of the "international old money feudal elite" (i.e. those snakelike fucks that Crown Colony countries pay homage to on their currency)... but I digress; Oz won't need our help dragging you into conflict with Chi-Com; the allure of your resources will eventually do that.
37. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's more like people getting angry at police shooting innocent people to death.
38. Re:Why this is wrong: by Aighearach · 2017-02-20 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing. The only condition is that countries that do not allow the death penalty require that the person not be facing potential execution.
  Other than that, the requirement is that at least one of the things you're accused of is a legit type of crime. Like fraud. They're not going to examine the evidence, they're going to examine the accusation.
  The trial will determine the value of the evidence. That happens later. These steps do matter. The apparent important fact is that he and others are accused of traveling to the USA to complete financial transactions that were illegal here. New Zealand has no choice but to hand him over, the court battle is only about delaying that.
39. Re:Why this is wrong: by Aighearach · 2017-02-20 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I have a feeling in the end he'll get a lot more process than he wanted.
40. Re:Why this is wrong: by thegarbz · 2017-02-20 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why should we have to bend over for anybody?
  NIMBYs.
41. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  Baloney...He's still there. If it were a lie, he would not be there. Apparently, New Zealand courts don't believe your opinion and fake news.
42. Re:Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  China is on the other side of the planet from the US (literally). They are just about in your back yard. The Chinese want to become the lone super power and dominate the planet (sorry, that is just the truth). They also believe that they are the master race and everyone else are savages. Does this sound familiar yet, something like Germany and Poland around 1936?
  Hope this is satire. Otherwise, you should apologize a thousand more times for making wild, unsubstantiated claims. It's kind of funny that you are on Slashdot, an old website for generally older people, still playing schoolboy fantasies of who would win in a war. Grow up.
43. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  American protection is not nearly as important to New Zealand as you seem to think. If you were talking about Australia you'd have a more convincing case, but then Australia is that much bigger. New Zealand is a tiny country in the middle of a hundred thousand square miles of diddly fucking squat; even if China wanted to invade, it would be hard to put together a plausible cost/benefit case for it.
  Particularly as the Chinese are currently doing very well in the Pacific using 'soft power'. Already, probably a majority of NZ sees their relationship with China as more important than their relationship with the USA. Free trade agreement? Got it. Chinese population? Almost one kiwi in 20, including their last prime minister, already speaks Mandarin. (That's way more than the proportion of American expats there.) NZ sells almost twice as much product to China as it does to the US. Why would they fear the Chinese? That'd be like fearing the Australians.
44. Re: Why this is wrong: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Except he lied on his recedancy application about not having any criminal conviction so should not of even been allowed in.
  And also there is some suspicion of dubious goings-on related to at least one member of parliament and quantities of cash. Before the raid occurred there should have been a proper investigation into the legitimacy of his residence in the country.
45. Re: Why this is wrong: by gravewax · 2017-02-21 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  no they simply believe in due process. Their is no question or doubt as to him having lied to obtain residency. The question will be whether they cancel that Visa once he is deported, my bet is they almost certainly will.
46. Re: Why this is wrong: by gravewax · 2017-02-21 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  what the fuck are you on about retard, it is public record he was convicted of dangerous driving which he pleaded guilty to in 2009. He was required to declare this on his residency application, he did not. And we aren't talking a minor offense here, it was 99km/hr over the speed limit in a 50 zone.
bye bye kimble by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 19:34 · Score: 0, Informative

The hacker scene in germany, witness to his lying and cheating, is not falling for you bullshit.
1. Re:bye bye kimble by Cederic · 2017-02-19 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Just because someone is a lying cheating cunt does not make it ok to skip justice.
  The law should protect everybody, even you.
Trump Rules! by aglider · 2017-02-19 19:37 · Score: 0

That's it!

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
proves one thing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 19:49 · Score: 1

Don't do business with americans
1. Re:proves one thing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 21:35 · Score: 0
  
  That won't protect you. US Laws apply to the whole effing planet.
2. Re:proves one thing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  North Korea laughs at you
3. Re:proves one thing by Aighearach · 2017-02-20 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  They weren't doing business with Americans. What it proves is not to travel to the US to do financial transactions if the transactions are not legal here. That's the thing that they did that causes other countries to be willing to hand them over.
I'm as usual torn in this case by Opportunist · 2017-02-19 19:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

On one hand, it's not a good thing to see that the international bully gets its way again.
On the other hand, it's Kimmie getting it up the ass...
No matter what side I root for it feels just wrong.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by thegarbz · 2017-02-19 21:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm not.
  On the one hand we have a arrogant fat shitstain on society, on the other we have the MAFIAA.
  The former for all his character flaws has actually provided people a product that had a need, an improved it along the way. The latter exist solely to skim money from the middle of artists and consumers by artificially limiting supply and then suing customers.
  As bad as Kim is, he's one person. He could have a history of eating babies and yet on the grand scheme of his effect on population, the economy and the adoption of future high-tech models of entertainment, he is still no where near as bad as an international consortium that does nothing but stifle the entertainment industry.
2. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by Raenex · 2017-02-20 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  The former for all his character flaws has actually provided people a product that had a need, an improved it along the way. The latter exist solely to skim money from the middle of artists and consumers by artificially limiting supply and then suing customers.
  Which is which again? Because the fat shitstain was profiting from artists without paying them at all. The "product" he provided was a thin veneer for a pirate site.
3. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by mishehu · 2017-02-20 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it was a thin veneer for pirating, however, there is a legitimate use otherwise for his service. That is, often times, enough to keep a product or service legal in the jurisdiction of the USA.
4. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by thegarbz · 2017-02-20 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Which is which again? Because the fat shitstain was profiting from artists without paying them at all. The "product" he provided was a thin veneer for a pirate site.
  From the artists? So Mega has a music upload business, and a search engine for it's files then? No. Mega was purely a file storage service. There was no functionality to search for music or infringing content on it. There was way to identify what content is what on its site. The download links weren't tied to file names which made any kind of indexing or even guessing at content on their site pointless. The only link that Mega had to piracy is that someone using their service to store data then posts links to it on 3rd party services.
  Where's the outrage at the forum which received the Mega link? Or the ISP that sent you the bits? Or Western Digital for daring to provide a medium for storing them. Heck if mega can be held accountable for storing your bits, why not WD and Seagate? They profit from you storing bits too the only difference is they don't do it by subscription service or by an ad supported system (no doubt they are looking into both).
  So if you don't know which is which I urge you to get a clue followed by some perspective.
5. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by Raenex · 2017-02-20 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  So if you don't know which is which I urge you to get a clue followed by some perspective.
  I urge you to cut the bullshit. You already acknowledged he was a fat shitstain. You ignored what I wrote and made some shitty analogies instead. His site wasn't just a neutral download site. It was a thin veneer for piracy, and there was evidence to back that up via internal email. That's what fat shitstains do.
  For all your huffing and puffing about artists, this guy was nothing but a parasite.
6. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by Raenex · 2017-02-20 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but there was evidence that they were facilitating copyright infringement. That's a big no-no.
7. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by thegarbz · 2017-02-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  You already acknowledged he was a fat shitstain.
  On a personal level, which has nothing to do with his business.
  
  You ignored what I wrote and made some shitty analogies instead.
  
  Nope I addressed it directly.
  
  His site wasn't just a neutral download site.
  
  His site provided a place to store data and share a link. Nothing more.
  
  It was a thin veneer for piracy,
  Conjecture.
  
  and there was evidence to back that up via internal email.
  There's evidence of every company that stores or moves bits at some point discussing the use of their platform for piracy.
  
  That's what fat shitstains do.
  I really get the feeling that you are incapable of separating a person from a business.
  
  I urge you to cut the bullshit.
  Yeah I will by ignoring what you say from this point. Quite frankly the level of bullshit increased infinitely when you joined the conversation.
8. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by Raenex · 2017-02-20 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  On a personal level, which has nothing to do with his business.
  It has everything to do with his business. That's his history, running criminal enterprises. That he's a fat piece of shit just makes him easier to scorn.
  
  Conjecture.
  No, based on evidence and using common sense.
  
  There's evidence of every company that stores or moves bits at some point discussing the use of their platform for piracy.
  It went beyond that.
  
  Yeah I will by ignoring what you say from this point.
  Of course you will, because your argument is indefensible. You're defending a parasite with a criminal history.
9. Re:I'm as usual torn in this case by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  What evidence? Why is it Mega's responsibility to police their users at every second? The Mega had sent special powers to the media moguls to delink any arbitrary link in Mega and yet, it's Mega's fault that their users are using it for copyright infringement?
My justification by hackwrench · 2017-02-19 19:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

My justification is along the lines stated by Kopimism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re:It's best to leave grown up things to grown up. by hackwrench · 2017-02-19 19:57 · Score: 1

Why?
Re: Let this be a warning to all punks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 20:12 · Score: 1

Where did you come from? That is just stupid
Just bung Trump 1 million or two by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 21:09 · Score: 0

A man who conspired with a foreign leader to take power despite the majority of Americans rejecting him, has bugger all reason to work to better America. So Kim Dotcom should just do a deal with him, like China just did awarding Trump his trademark after a decade of rejecting it.
It's all up for sale now. Our treasonous President is backed by Republicans who are too weak to impeach his Putin loving ass, and Americans too divided to do their duty and protect their country from takeover.
And he keeps trying to divide us, keeps trying to divide Republicans, allies, the military, everyone, while Putin is sailing his warship 30 miles off our coast without so much as a peep out of his orange puppet.
1. Re: Just bung Trump 1 million or two by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:47 · Score: 0
  
  30 miles off the coast is well into international waters. Anyone can sail there, including the Vatican Navy if they feel like. Stop being frightened by your own shadow.
2. Re: Just bung Trump 1 million or two by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Sure you could buy off trump but he wouldnt stay bought... He has the attention span of Dory!
3. Re: Just bung Trump 1 million or two by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Hear, hear! Rattle those sabres! The Democrats are the party of war! Get those Russkies!
4. Re:Just bung Trump 1 million or two by amiga3D · 2017-02-20 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Idiot. He isn't dividing anything. He's taking advantage of the divide that was here. The vast majority of middle America has been seething for decades in resentment. He just tapped into it. They didn't have a leader as the Republican Cucks in DC are just as much whores as the Democrats. Now Trump volunteered to lead them. Is he full of shit? Most likely. Is he the only person to address their anger? Yes. I'm just enjoying watching him shake up the bullshit up there. The fucking press who are bigger whores than Congress and all the establishment whores like McCain. It's been a hoot.
Seems reasonable, but why extradite? by jopsen · 2017-02-19 21:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they can prove that he defrauded people then, yeah, it's fraud to sell people products that aren't yours.
To be fair that seems a bit hard to prove, but I don't know the details of how he sold the product, which he'll presumably argue was just bandwidth.
That said, I'm confused why, if he committed fraud he isn't prosecuted in New Zealand?
So if someone gets caught running a randsom-ware scam do all countries then take turn having the person extradited, prosecuted and jailed...
Don't get me wrong, I hate randsom-ware scam authors as much as the next guy, but giving someone just 6 months prison in every country where a crime was committed easily turns into a life sentence. Honestly, that seems a little harsh.
1. Re:Seems reasonable, but why extradite? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  If he were prosecuted in New Zealand he'd get a fair trial. That's why he must be prosecuted in the USA. So that he gets an unfair trial.
2. Re:Seems reasonable, but why extradite? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  And that's probably why he'd get the extradition quashed. The accusations are crimes where he is and committed where he is and the MPAA et al are all available in NZ.
  TBH, this BS is not so much the FBI et al's fault as The Hobbit et al.
Re:Let this be a warning to all punks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 21:32 · Score: 0

It will only be remorseful on Dotcom's part if he is forced to share that cell with Trump
Weird ruling by bradley13 · 2017-02-19 21:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

IANAL, and I don't know New Zealand law. However: this is a weird ruling.
The judgement agrees that copyright infringement is not a criminal offense in New Zealand, and that DotCom cannot be extradited on this. However, it then goes on to conclude that distributing copyrighted materials may deprive copyright holders of their property, and that this therefore is fraud (which is criminal). That latter seems like an end-run around the intent of the law, and it contradicts the first conclusion. It seems likely that DotCom will win the next level of appeal.
That said, he's a idiot. He's counting on New Zealand to defend him, and yet he keeps badmouthing the country, its laws and its government. He really is a total jerk.

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
1. Re:Weird ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  So no one can criticise their country when then judicial system was illegal abused, and the country's own Prime Minster has admitted so, and that it was wrong. What utopia do you live it? I can't be any country in the West, all have blood on their hands with illegal wars and occupation of counties that have vast oil and gas reserves. Now how does that compare to an online storage service? You are aware Youtube had far more copyright infringement going on in unshared videos? You name it, it's on there for those with the front-ends to access it. Are Google execs going to be prosecuted?
2. Re:Weird ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  "He's counting on New Zealand to defend him, and yet he keeps badmouthing the country, its laws and its government. "
  You shouldn't have to be a kiss-ass to be protected.
  I'm fucking flabbergasted that you would even say that.
3. Re:Weird ruling by thegarbz · 2017-02-20 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  That said, he's a idiot. He's counting on New Zealand to defend him, and yet he keeps badmouthing the country, its laws and its government. He really is a total jerk.
  Are you saying the legal system of a country bends to opinion tweets? Shit I prefer if they stick to bending to foreign corporate will.
4. Re:Weird ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it may mean that if you and your friends share copyrighted material amongst yourselves, you won't be extradited. But, if you and your friends create a business that provides incentives to distribute copyrighted material on a massive scale while claiming all proceeds of that business, you would graduate from copyright infringement to mega fraud.
As a New Zealander please take him now by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 21:53 · Score: 0

Apalled at the comments here on /. KDC is a criminal and making a farce of the court system in NZ. How many years has his circus been going on? Hes no robin hood people ... just saying!
1. Re:As a New Zealander please take him now by Cederic · 2017-02-19 23:31 · Score: 2
  
  That's odd, you seem to want to lose any protection your government might offer you against foreign interference.
  Kick out Kim Dot Fuckwit for being someone you don't want in the country if you don't like him, but don't roll over and drop your trousers for the US first.
2. Re:As a New Zealander please take him now by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Ah dammit man. Now I *can't* stop thinking about clowns eating pasta, jerk!
3. Re:As a New Zealander please take him now by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  then enjoy your fucking herpes motherfucker. and pass it forward you fucking cuck for sore lips.
4. Re:As a New Zealander please take him now by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  don't get a piece of sauce stuck on your lip man.
Insightful, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 22:00 · Score: 0

Kim & Co are the target because they actually did it - they built a tool (one of many grant you) to share copy written material. Google on the other hand has powerful tools (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en ; although the veracity of the system is in question by some) to stop or monetize copy written material on youtube. Also note that google's system is proactive and seeks out copy written content rather than waiting for DMCA take down orders (I'm sure they get their share of those too).
What you're comparing is a video sharing apple to a video sharing orange sir.
1. Re:Insightful, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  You are wrong.
  They built a tool to share.
  Your attempts to attach "copyrighted material" after various sentences means little. And what little it does mean is that you support a future where information is more controlled. No one wants such a future but stupid short sighted people support the steps taken towards it anyway.
2. Re: Insightful, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  I want information more controlled. Translation: I want the crappy mainstream entertainment businesses to control their drivel better. There is no need for the proles to be passing that content to and fro, constantly shuffling the same dreck back and forth.
  People should be creating their own content, freely.
3. Re: Insightful, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Information *is* going to be more controlled, whether you like it or not. The Italian parliament last week passed a law that will punish website and blog owners very heavily - prison terms included - for spreading "fake news" or "information that could endanger the democratic process". Definitions are vague, but they mean that effective immediately, you better not operate a website or blog in Italy. You could be fined or imprisoned for a single comment you didn't even make. The European Parliament is about to go the same way. So, the ship has already sailed. No turning back now.
4. Re: Insightful, eh? by harvey+the+nerd · 2017-02-20 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks to our forefathers for the 1st and 2nd amendments...
5. Re:Insightful, eh? by LesFerg · 2017-02-20 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Proof? There were more sales of VHS tapes before that website started up than there were after.
  Probably much higher sales of 8mm before that site started too.
  Need any more evidence?
  heh
  
  --
  If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Golden rule by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 22:48 · Score: 0

The vexing part about this is that "the one who has the gold" does it under the loud cheering of the ones who have no gold whatsoever.
And, BTW: not only the US. Nearly everywhere. The sheep cheering for the crocodile. We truly deserve to be bitten, it seems.
The corrupt and dishonest U.S continues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-19 23:02 · Score: 0

its crusade for complete ownership of music, movies, entertainment, cloud, and as many Internet-related business segments as possible. A few years ago file-sharing services were abundant, but these days all we really hear of is DropBox, Google Drive and Microsoft Cloud, or whatever they're called. One by one, the services foreign to the U.S. goes away for one or another reason.
1. Re: The corrupt and dishonest U.S continues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  It won't continue for long since they're winning.
Conspiracy to defraud by JPMH · 2017-02-20 00:22 · Score: 2

The New Zealand Herald has the full text of the judgment with its article here
Paragraph 77 onwards of the judgment are an absolutely crushing demolition of the Dotcom team's arguments that facilitating copyright infringement on an industrial scale should not be considered "conspiracy to defraud".
"Conspiracy to defraud" is extradictable to the USA; Dotcom & co are likely to be going away for a long time.
1. Re:Conspiracy to defraud by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  Is there a single case in NZ law of someone being prosecuted for Fraud for acts of copyright infringement?
  It seems to rest on "Fraud is dishonest" and "all data are documents" and "dishonest is anything without permission" and "he did not have permission to copy", which reads as "all copyright infringement is Fraud" to me. This seems an overstretch, and seems to ignore specific legislative intent in the copyright act to define and limit what kind of copyright infringement are criminally liable.
  I am no lawyer, but it really reads like taking a law against "tresspass on government property without permission that endangers a federal officer" and applying it to jaywalking (The road belongs to the government, the government does not allow you to jaywalk, your jaywalking was using the road without government permission, jaywalking endangers road users, there are federal officers that use the road).
2. Re:Conspiracy to defraud by JPMH · 2017-02-20 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Like I said, read the judgment, which cites 100 years of cases in the UK, under laws essentially similar to NZ's.
  Also note that this is about "conspiracy to defraud" -- which is a specific thing in law, significantly broader and *different* to fraud. Again, see the judgment for the statutory definition in NZ law.
  Thinking that this is about "fraud" is a mistake. It's not. And news reports that write about it as "fraud" are significantly misleading.
3. Re:Conspiracy to defraud by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  But does the US intend to extradite on that charge? It seems a tortuous path to get around the fact that copyright infringement in New Zealand is not criminal. I suspect the US can't get the defendant with copyright law itself due to New Zealand's differences in law but if they do get the defendant by this legal scheme they will prosecute for...copyright infringement. Is there any requirement for the US to comply with any New Zealand court conditions once they have the defendant in custody?
Re:Ain't a CELL that can HOLD him by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:18 · Score: 0

Well played
Well, that's wrong for a start by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:48 · Score: 1

It should start with:
"The bottom line is if a big US company claims you stole from them..."
Since no theft nor loss occurred, all that there is is a claim of loss and/or theft.
I mean, the bottom line is if you're in North Korea, all you have to do is try to destabilise the government through acts of violent terrorism and you're executed by the state.
The uncomfortable problem with it, like with your posts' claims, is that there doesn't actually have to have been a crime committed in reality for you to be punished for it.
He's on the run for illegal arrest. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 01:53 · Score: 0

Do you likewise claim defectors from the old Soviet Russia were criminals on the run???
He's not even facing an accusation yet, not of rape (and note the putative victims also say it wasn't rape, but why would they know, they're only women, eh?). He's still only wanted for questioning. And he doesn't have to be in Sweden to do that. They've teleconferenced with murderers to ask them questions.
1. Re:He's on the run for illegal arrest. by Goaway · 2017-02-20 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Do you likewise claim defectors from the old Soviet Russia were criminals on the run???
  No, because that is a completely different situation in nearly every conceivable way.
  
  He's not even facing an accusation yet
  Because he is, by his own choice, delaying the legal process so that it can not proceed to that point.
  
  He's still only wanted for questioning.
  Which is required before charges can be filed, by Swedish law.
where is the damage proof? by kiviQr · 2017-02-20 02:40 · Score: 1

Judge should check film studios and record companies' revenue after shutting down Megauploads minus revenue before, adjusted for other factors. If they are not close to $500m case should be closed since it is an extortion.
1. Re:where is the damage proof? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  I thought people in NZ were safe from being extradited to countries known to torture.
Mexico Border Shooting by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-02-20 03:03 · Score: 2

The case you cite in Mexico, there are a few things you should know about Mexico. It is basically a lawless state with every official and police officer corrupt and run by the drug cartels. Anyone who was not corrupt was systematically murdered over the last 20 years. US border patrol is ROUTINELY fired at by Mexican nationals who are running drugs and people across the border from the Mexico side. This teenager and 3 male friends attempted to enter the US illegally, they fought with border patrol agents and Sergio managed to break free, resisting arrest and he was shot while fleeing. I find it very telling that the video you link to is clipped together with only a few seconds and only the audio of the gunshot? What happened before that? Oh the Mexican "authorities" didn't make any more publicly available? Gee I wonder why.
I am sorry, I don't have that much sympathy for Sergio. The same thing routinely happens at Mexico's southern border with zero world outrage. Worse things happen to Australian illegal aliens. So yes, the US will not allow a federal agent to be extradited to the incorporated drug cartel of Mexico over a shooting that occurred during the commission of a crime. US police and federal agents are allowed to shoot fleeing suspects when they feel that they are a continued threat to US citizens. This little thug was probably a drug smuggler. The border agent should be reviewed and potentially disciplined depending on the totality of the events as they are available, with zero credence give to any testimony from the suspects Mexican national family or the Mexican "authorities" who are both corrupt and criminal. If the facts warrant, maybe even charge the agent in the US with gross negligence or manslaughter, but certainly not murder, which requires ill intent and malice. The border agent did not initiate the criminal activity or resist arrest, which escalated the incident. $10 says the boy who was shot had a bunch of drugs on him that were removed by Mexican police and returned to the cartel. Or they were acting as a diversion while the cartel ran drugs somewhere nearby.
Regarding Germany, both guards were convicted of manslaughter (not murder) for shooting someone trying to escape a fascist regime, not trying to enter a country illegally and assaulting a federal officer. Those guards were acting under explicit orders from East Germany. And their sentences were suspended, meaning they served zero time. Hardly justice for murdering a truly innocent person. A few decades before that, Germany murdered a few million Jews simply for being Jewish, so they are hardly the gold standard on how to treat people, thank you very much for playing...
And where is the outrage over the several thousand illegal aliens who are being detained by the Australians under conditions so bad that they are setting themselves on fire? Stop hating on America for doing what every other country on the planet does and protecting it's border from unlawful entry. https://www.theguardian.com/au...

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
A nation of laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 04:41 · Score: 0

So much hypocrisy it is unbelievable isn't it? Dotcom is not being tried for a law the government thought he broke. Instead Dotcom is being tried based in the government working to find a law he might have broke. This is called persecution.
Hey guess where 500 million went? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 06:05 · Score: 0

HEY guess whee the cash went? TO PEOPLE / BUSINESSES OF NEW ZEALAND....CANT have that now can we ....SCREW NEW ZEALAND
MAKE AMERICA MORE RICH AGAIN ..and AGAIN....AND AGAIN...you NEW ZEALAND people go shut up and be frakin poor
RIAA/MPAA lost absolutely NO money whatsoever... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 07:07 · Score: 0

Honestly, they didn't.
First off, file-sharers are NOT pirates. Period.
The people who "file-share" are more likely to "purchase" than most who don't.
Those that pirate and do not purchase were NEVER going to purchase.
If anything, their profits were IMPROVED because of file sharers.
The only money they've lost are the bribes they've used to purchase our congress-critters and attorney's general who've believed or were paid to believe their lies, damned lies and outright fibberism.
The only people hurting the RIAA/MPAA are themselves wasting money on bribes for a problem that DOES NOT EXIST.
They hurt themselves further by wasting money on encryption that does nothing to stop those who will copy, most often for their own use so children don't destroy the originals.
They then hurt their industries by playing accounting games that they then use as "evidence" that they do not have to pay the artists, actors, support staff involved in the production of the media they then sell for record profits.
Ashamed New Zealander here. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 07:54 · Score: 1

As a New Zealander, I am ashamed of this outcome.
The NZ Government should never have allowed this in the first place, they have been bullied into this by the US Government, it's cronies the MAFIAA, the dangling carrot of the TPPA implying free trade with the USA. Our former Prime Minister had a boner for this. The NZ Police took heavy criticism on the dawn raid on his property in Auckland, they didn't have a choice and were acting on orders. The whole thing is a clusterfuck from day one.
You would think we were a sovereign nation with some balls, apparently not. Instead we have turned into the South Pacific Puppet for the USA. While Kim Dotcom (KDC) has a shady past, I will agree he's no saint; I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he moved on.
My understanding is that he/Megaupload was active, open and fair with the terms of service and takedown policies. He gave the recording studios/distributors free logins to check for "stored infringing content" and when they sent a takedown, he responding in the correct manner on every single one of them by taking the content down.
He extended the same offer to the movie industry and they refused saying he had to police it himself. With 25 petabytes of content on there that was not going to happen.
So all of a sudden he's up in racketeering, money laundering, and whatever ever-else trumped ("Trumped"?) -up shakedown charges they can make up, "...he hosted the content, therefore it's his fault.". Fuck that shit, the only reason they don't go after Google et. al. is because they have deeper pockets and more lawyers.
I compare the premise of the charges KDC is facing, to someone suing a gun maker because one of the gun-makers firearms was used in the murder of a loved one.
As for the "cost film studios and record companies more than $500 million". Prove it - I compare this inflated figure to the Business Software Association regularly saying "piracy cost the software industry $10 billion a year" - which, back then, equated to like three copies of Adobe Creative Suite... ;)
Lastly, I feel for Carpathia hosting, having a shit-ton of their kit seized, never to be seen again. 25PB of data is about 30 racks FULL of 1TB 3.5" hard disks.. we are going back 6+ (?) years here. It was illegally seized on "suspicion" then mined for "evidence". INAL, but even my limited knowledge of USA law tells me that was not within the law.
I hope KDC further fights the extradition - the Appeals Court, a loss means and then it will go to the Supreme Court of NZ. Yes, we have one of those! :)
Performers. Never mentioned... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-20 09:09 · Score: 0

Why does everyone in these types of discussions always knock the Riaa and their friends but never mention the actors and musicians that are with them ?
They are part of the medusa without them the riaa has nothing to Defend!
Big guy vs little guy, money always wins. by AbRASiON · 2017-02-20 20:55 · Score: 1

Follow the money, follow the power, follow the influence.
Do you guys think for a mother fucking SECOND if this was some tinpot little country, smaller than New Zealand, this would happen?
Do you think, if NZ pushed for this, from an American, this would happen?
This is retarded.
he should change his name to kim dot fattyretard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 00:26 · Score: 0

seriously, you choose to hide in a fucking country, when the ones that are gonna go get your ass are the yankees because hollywood is in burgerland and you are storing movies above all, and you choose one of the burgerland satellites?
how much of a fucking retard do you have to be to not notice that england, canada, australia, new zealand, are ESSENTIALLY
THE
SAME
FUCKING
COUNTRY
yup, i said it, i went there
seriously... i mean, had you been a regular retard and chosen, i dont know, sweden or germoney, i could understand that, your ass would still be sent to burgerland maybe even faster since those are colonies, but is a mistake i can understand and in that case you would just simply be a regular run of the mill retard with still an even number of choromosomes, bu this? this is something else entirely dude
Is that the same RIAA and MPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 08:47 · Score: 0

who wanted to "copyright" Prince's name? (Remember "Slave")