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.

Comments

whose fraud???

[harvey the nerd]

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.

Re:whose fraud???

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:whose fraud???

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:whose fraud???

[Opportunist]

In the US, the golden rule applies. He with the gold makes the rules.

Re: whose fraud???

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:whose fraud???

[LeftCoastThinker]

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.

Re:whose fraud???

[The Grassy Knoll]

No, it's from the comic strip "The Wizard of Id" some time in the 60s

Re:whose fraud???

[JonnyCalcutta]

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.

Re:whose fraud???

[crashumbc]

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.

Re:whose fraud???

[currently_awake]

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.

Re:whose fraud???

[Solandri]

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.)

Re: Question for you file sharers

[aussie_a]

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.

Why this is wrong:

[Aaron B Lingwood]

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.

Re:Why this is wrong:

[DMJC]

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.

Re:Question for you file sharers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I'm as usual torn in this case

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:I'm as usual torn in this case

[thegarbz]

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.

My justification

[hackwrench]

My justification is along the lines stated by Kopimism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Seems reasonable, but why extradite?

[jopsen]

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.

Weird ruling

[bradley13]

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.