Slashdot Mirror
Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited To US On Copyright Charges, New Zealand Court Rules (yahoo.com)
schwit1 shares a report from Yahoo News: Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom suffered a major setback in his epic legal battle against online piracy charges Thursday when New Zealand's Court of Appeal ruled he was eligible for extradition to the United States. The German national, who is accused of netting millions from his file sharing Megaupload empire faces charges of racketeering, fraud and money laundering in the U.S., carrying jail terms of up to 20 years. Dotcom had asked the court to overturn two previous rulings that the Internet mogul and his three co-accused be sent to America to face charges. Instead, a panel of three judges backed the FBI-led case, which began with a raid on Dotcom's Auckland mansion in January 2012 and has dragged on for more than six years. His lawyer tweeted he would appeal to the NZ Supreme Court.
that's disgusting. US laws now World Laws? I'm expat soon
and hold out somewhere else that doesn't extradite.
Maybe Snowden would like some company?
I know I should side with Kim. But ... it's hard to side with Kim. Every time I do, I feel like recounting my fingers to see whether I still have all of them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
of potential expat countries for retirement.
It's been this way for a long time.
Coast Guard makes seizures and arrests off the coast of Ecuador and Peru.
Extraordinary Rendition
Pressured/forced Extradition
If they want you, they'll get you. But, don;t fret. You're not important and they don't care about you. You need to make or cost someone else shit loads of money to be "important".
Snowden was pretty certain from the start that the feds would be after him just as soon as the leaks came out and they put 2 & 2 together to figure out it was him, so make haste to get out as quick as he could.
Should Kim have known from the start that eventually the feds were going to come from him? Or did he think his operation would be small enough/off the radar enough to avoid the risk of extradition?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
He's found extraditable due to the fraud charges, not the copyright charges, because the countries essentially share the same fraud laws. However once he's there he will face all charges. The distinction is too subtle for headline speak.
Only sometimes, and this is one of those times.
The whole thing is a shakedown, pure and simple - the FBI-led raid had KDC's wife and children held at gunpoint because KDC "was a firearms enthusiast". Despicable that our US-Ass-Kissing Government we let ourselves get conned into this bullshit.
How can KDC and his associates are charged with "criminal copyright"... what even is that? Did anyone ever die from a movie being downloaded?
I sincerely hope our Supreme Court has the good sense to deny the extradition, then my shame might decrease.
.. because someone uploaded an mp3/movie to their friends on facebook.
In New Zealand, copyright infringement is not illegal, its a trespass on someone's rights. So even if you believe the owner of Dropbox should be responsible for content uploaded by its users its still not a crime so no extradition should occur.
The real eye opener here was the New Zealand governments zeal to break its own laws, to facilitate the extradition. In other words the New Zealand government committed crimes in order to obtain evidence to charge him with in the first place.
No extradition with the US, phenomenal weather, low cost of living. A million will set you up for life in Bali, with no worries of ever being extradited to the US.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Or maybe go to North Korea, his name would have granted him some privileges for sure.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
NZ, a western country that's a vassal of the USA
Doens’t work like that. Some countries don’t extradite their own citizens like France and Germany, in this case he probably was safer in his own Germany. NZ: Kim is probably targetted by an international arrest warrant, and NZ just obeys international rules.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Kim made millions by making the world happier and more cultured. He (perhaps foolishly) didn't anticipate being dragged to an authoritarian country where he didn't live and didn't do business, for persecution and torture.
When you start an online business, do you ask yourself if you're in compliance with the the laws of North Korea? What about Saudi Arabia? Venezuela?
Even if you love copywrong and intellectual monopoly; even if you hate the idea of the masses having access to culture; even if you think Mr Dotcom is a flatulent shitlord - how can you support his extradition to a country he's never even visited? To a country like ours that's famed for the wickedness of its courts and the cruelty of its vast Gulag?
The key to extradition between countries is that the accusation needs to be for a crime for which an extradition treaty exists. Between the US and NZ, here is a listing (which is typical of other country treaties with the US): https://internationalextraditi... ... I did RTFA, but did not find a link to the NZ court ruling to confirm the extent to which this bilateral extradition treaty was the basis for the ruling.
Dotcom is accused of racketeering and money laundering, which would seem to be covered in the treaty section on fraud: "16. Obtaining property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or by conspiracy to defraud the public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether such deceit or falsehood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense." The definition of racketeering is something like, "dishonest and fraudulent business dealings."
International extradition treaties are part of why plaintiffs and prosecutors seek such high crimes, in their charges. The article links to the US court filing, if you want to see the full list. Another reason is that, in the US, criminal charges are made at the highest possible level of seriousness, so that there will be a plea bargain for a lower charge, rather than bringing a case all the way to the end. Federal prosecutions in the US very rarely result in Not Guilty or in charges being dismissed (under 5%).
That EU law that got struck down yesterday was part of an industry effort to add copyright infringement to the set of laws that would let enforcement cross national boundaries. For copyright, there is no current international extradition (at least, not with the US -- the EU has been doing its own thing). The Berne Convention, and associated treaties under WIPO, are the applicable international treaties for copyright, and do not make provisions for extradition or international enforcement for copyright violation. The fact that international boundaries are usually very easy to cross via Internet traffic is a big concern for publishers, media companies, etc., and they have been trying for a long time to extend reach of copyright laws beyond national boundaries.
One of the earliest such cases was in 2000, and involved a US copyright law forbidding reverse engineering of encryption. The DeCSS case, https://www.technewsworld.com/..., was to bring charges against Jon Johansen in Norway for posting a decryption program. Nowadays, I would expect charges in US courts would also include crimes for which extradition treaties apply, like fraud and larceny. This is easily achieved by stipulating large $ damages (due to lost revenue, piracy, etc.).
More recently, we know that Julian Assange is concerned about being extradited to the US under a secret indictment in the US courts. The rape charges in Sweden were sufficient for extradition from the UK (https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/international-judicial-co-operation/extradition-for-criminal-offences/), but Ecuador has an approach that gives higher priority to avoiding torture than the bilateral treaties. The Guardian has a nice short cheeky piece about why Edward Snowden was also thought to be en route to Ecuador, before he ended up staying in Russia: https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
We are getting the picture, right? The US isn't the only country that seeks very high-level crimes in what are basically copyright cases, nor are they the only country where moneyed business interests are able to get the ear of criminal courts for issues that are, essentially, civil cases (a distinction that matters a lot in countries that follow common law... less so for countries with different legal heritage, like Ge
They're a UK vassal. UK is merely friends with the US.
I don't care what your opinions are, but will you please upgrade your basic knowledge so that you can do better analysis?
Don't fool yourself. Russia is only providing shelter because it serves their purpose in tweaking the U.S. If it ever becomes advantageous for Putin to turn Snowden over to the U.S. it will happen so fast his head will spin. Assange is finding Ecuador, after a change in government leadership, is about done with him too.
None of the countries mentioned are bastions of freedom. They are U.S. adversaries practicing realpolitik.
Have gnu, will travel.
You sir, are very demonstrably ignorant of this issue. I'm so sick and tired of you right-wing American F**ks who do not understand the FIRST THING about universal health care. First, yes, Canadians travel to the US for healthcare but many Americans also come here because it's WAY, WAY cheaper to pay for world-class hospital care here if you need it and are not covered in the US (which is about 11% of the overall American population according to: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/1... ). BTW, in Canada, that number is 0%. Everyone is covered; well, unless you're an American coming up here trying to get healthcare 'cause you'll die in the US - then you'll have to pay for it... about 25% or so of typical US charges for many things. *WE* may travel to the US because it's FASTER to get certain types of procedures in the US - specifically elective and those for non-life threatening conditions - and pay an insane amount of money for it. Obviously, this means RICH Canadians. Having had three major surgeries here in Vancouver over the last four years, which were all performed by extremely qualified surgeons and support teams in a timely manner even though none of them were for life-threatening conditions in the short term. In the US, my insurer (if I was lucky enough to have one) would probably still be dicking me around on wether or not they'd cover it. I can also tell you that if I had been in the US, as an independent software developer, it's very unlikely I'd have any coverage at all except for perhaps under the ACA. So there. While I wish no ill on you just because you're a right-wing 'tard, part of me kinda hopes that you find yourself suddenly without HC and with no ability to pay for it - and needing it or you'll die. Then maybe you'll get it.