Slashdot Mirror
Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited, Rules A New Zealand Court (reuters.com)
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.
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.
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.
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 As soon as the bought and paid for copyright lengths are repealed and the public are compensated for the gross bribery that took place.
I would. I've never heard Metallica again.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.