US Wins Appeal In Battle To Extradite Kim Dotcom 175
Dr Max sends this excerpt from an AP report:
"U.S. prosecutors won a New Zealand court victory Friday in their battle to extradite Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and three colleagues accused of facilitating massive copyright fraud through the now-defunct online file-sharing site. The appeals court overturned an earlier ruling that would have allowed Dotcom and the others broad access to evidence in the case against them at the time of their extradition hearing, which is scheduled for August. The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice. Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies."
I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Funny)
Good boy! Him roll over! Can you sit? Can you sit? Come on, boy...sit!
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.
So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.
USA.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.
So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.
USA.
So when they do it will be fair?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and the Chinese will have airbases in the US. They will fly drones to take out any Chinese citizens in the US that are siding with the enemy. If the US can do that, why not others?
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the principle of the Bush Doctrine is accepted, then what qualifies, as you ask? Every country will have its own definition, and China's will certainly be different. Even if some international convention is agreed, it will be bypassed. The point is, the US has asserted the right, and others will follow. I contend that this precedent is worse than not implementing the doctrine in the first place, and accepting that the occasional baddie gets away.
Apparently Congress has declared war on Al Qaeda. The US has signed the Geneva Convention. Does the US comply with the convention? I don't think rendered detainees were only asked for their name, rank and number.
Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted in 9/11.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted from 9/11."
Tracking them down is one thing. Drone strikes are quite another.
Those, in particular, are against international treaty, international law, and also U.S. law.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.
So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.
USA.
So when they do it will be fair?
===
Have you thought about what you respondied? China has the economic clout. If China blacklisted the USA, your IT world would quickly become wasteland. From the resister, capacitor, motherboard, to fully manuufactured routers, tablets etc, would be frozen in time. Suddenly you would be required to pay double for smuggled equipment to satisfy your needs.
Why would they do that is the question to answer? They being USA and/or China
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"always reminded me of a spoiled child, stamping its foot on the ground and threatening to make a scene if he doesn't get what he wants"
I thought you were talking about North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
The US just has much bigger feet.
Re: (Score:2)
"when China has the might and firepower of the US"
So - might makes right, huh? If you say so.
"when China has the might and firepower of the US"
Just wait for it - it IS going to happen. Like riding a motorcycle - there is no question of "if I go down", the real question is "when will I go down?" It might be twenty years in the future, it might be fifty, but China WILL be as militarily strong as the United States is. We are working hard to ensure that their dream comes true, by exporting anything and ever
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance is so scary, primarily because so many Americans share it.
China declared war on us a couple of decades ago. Assymetrical warfare is working quite well for them, actually. They get all our tech, they get our debt, they get our manufacturing capacity, they get our "intellectual property", they get no-brains Americans investing cash in them, they get everything either free, or at a penny on the hundreds of dollars.
They declared war, and we agreed to help them wage war against us.
Like the Briti
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps its fairer to say that the US declared war against itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Empire to empire relationship is governed by different kind of realpolitik then empire to vassal state.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn."
For me I speak the southern dialect (Yue, or Cantonese) so Mandarin is a cake walk. But for those who grew up getting used to writing a totally different script, this could be a monumental task.
For starters I would suggest learning writing in "pinyin" first to learn the basic words, definitions and grammar, before moving to writing the actual script.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Informative)
Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn.
As someone who has learned to speak Mandarin, I can say that this is not true. I have heard that it takes about 20 weeks of full time study for a native English speaker to be able to communicate in basic Spanish, but 80 weeks to reach the same level in Mandarin. I think this is about right. Mandarin is hard. The grammar is simple, but there are a lot of homophones and weird idioms, and worst of all is the tones. Young kids can learn them, but they are almost impossible for an adult whose brain has already congealed. After years of study, I can order in a restaurant and understand tech-talk, but I struggle with casual small talk, and I almost never understand the jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, homophobes are weird idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
The US & china would have to have an extradition agreement first.
If that were in place and a us company had broken the Chinese laws while doing business in China, then yes I think that would be fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair, so far he's pushed for almost everything Hollywood has asked for. He signed the ACTA treaty without even allowing the senate to look at it, let alone vote on it. Big constitutional no-no, but he did it anyways at their behest.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy there. The US thugs haven't "won" anything yet. The extradition hearing isn't until August. This is just a procedural ruling.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
The extradition is complete. Everything else is just a formality. The court just ruled that Dotcom isn't going to be able to use any real evidence to defend himself. Now New Zealand has to follow their treaty obligations and send him to a US kangaroo court where he will face 100,000 charges and a million year jail term (or 2 years in jail on a plea agreement). He's fucked. If I were him, I'd think about escaping to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
Re: (Score:2)
No it didn't.
The court ruled that a summary of the evidence was enough to go to trial and that Kim isn't going to be allowed to tie the case up 'looking at evidence'.
They just stopped one of his stall tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
In most civilized countries the defendant has a right to see the evidence against themselves so that they can defend themselves.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.
I really don't give a rat's ass if Dotcom is convicted or not. However, I find the way that this is being done a bit disturbing. No full access to the evidence against him? This sounds rather like a Soviet denunciation legal procedure.
What do our "I am a Kiwi lawyer" readers have to say about the right of the accused to see the evidence against him in New Zealand? Maybe this is normal there, and nothing special they are doing to railroad Dotcom.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.
I doubt that. The movie companies are always looking at the bottom line. New Zealand offers the right landscapes at the right price with first world infrastructure. If it was cheaper elsewhere they'd already be going elsewhere. I very much doubt they'd pay significantly more just to make this point.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Informative)
That's the dirty little secret about federal charges in the U.S. Federal court rules don't require the prosecution to hand over their evidence until the trial unlike state courts where the accused has a chance to see the evidence against him- or herself and prepare a defence. And the minimum penalties are always enormous.
That's why federal charges are so highly feared in the U.S. and it's why almost all federal cases are pleaded out.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21570742-how-mandatory-minimum-sentences-distort-plea-bargaining-thumb-scale [economist.com]
The article is about a different issue, but it describes the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind this is an extradition matter. At an extradition hearing, the issues are basically limited to (1) whether you are the person being sought by the other jurisdiction and (2) whether the charges in the other jurisdiction are the type of charges for which a person can be extradited. I am not as familiar with international extradition as I am interstate extradition within the United States, and certainly there will be specific rules spelled out in an extradition treaty between New Zealand and the Un
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about New Zealand but with Canada there is also
(3) Is the punishment comparable to what would be received in Canada.
This includes Canada refusing to extradite in cases involving the death penalty (agreements usually made not to pursue capital punishment) and cases where the punishment is way out of line with the crime. Sadly our law and order Conservative government has no problem breaking these laws, eg Marc Emery was extradited for selling seeds, a crime usually punished by a couple of hundred
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.
I really don't give a rat's ass if Dotcom is convicted or not. However, I find the way that this is being done a bit disturbing. No full access to the evidence against him? This sounds rather like a Soviet denunciation legal procedure.
What do our "I am a Kiwi lawyer" readers have to say about the right of the accused to see the evidence against him in New Zealand? Maybe this is normal there, and nothing special they are doing to railroad Dotcom.
===
Would he have access to full evidence if he was in the American Court. If so, at what cost, and with the "volume" of supposed evidence, how long and how many lawyers would he need to sift through it all?
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing the US has won here, is a denial for Kim Dotcom to access all available evidence while he would still have an opportunity to affect that evidence.
It has little to do with the actual extradition request itself.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way would you expect Dotcom to "affect" the evidence? Why would the provide copies in a writable format?
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly are you concerned about? Describe a situation where providing the evidence against Dotcom to Dotcom would decrease justice. Give me one specific plausible hypothetical.
Representative Democracy (Score:2)
In this soveriegn nation do they have a thing called television?
He who owns the media controls the government, same as here.
I love this... (Score:5, Insightful)
" Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies.""
Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
Re:I love this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Paranoid ramblings.
In a court of law you do not present your evidence unless you have to. Much like in poker you don't show your cards. Not because you don't have any, or because they are bad, but ... well, if you don't understand why then you've never played the game.
Whether or not their evidence will win them a conviction is another question and entirely irrelevant to the extradition hearing. All that matters is that they do have a proper case, i.e. they have more than "because we'd like to, please" when
Re:I love this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.
I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument. "Bogging down the process" means nothing compared to showing evidence to the accused. Right to confront your accuser and all that.
Re: (Score:3)
The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
Correct.
Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.
Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial. You don't need to have all the evidence presented at that discussion. You just need to establish if there's going to be a trial at all. And the defense claiming that they can't agree on a date without having seen and read all the evidence beforehand is just ridiculous and exactly what the court rule
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.
Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial.
I suppose I am wondering what the threshold for extradition is then. It is more than "nothing", but less than "guilty". So is it like "possibly guilty"?
If it is like "setting the date for the trial", why don't they just extradite him without any court involvement?
It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.
I know you strongly dislike the guy for being a scumbag, but two wrongs do not make a right. If U.S. screwed up the procedures (of which there is a strong possibility), they deserve to lose because that may encourage them to follow the rules next
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't generally actually get to use retarded technicalities to get off
So you are arguing that full or even partial disclosure is a retarded technicality?
> with a few exceptions where the technicality was created
> intentionally to get defendants an escape plan against a
> corrupted situation.
If you replace "technicality" with "fundamental tenet" in the above, you might be getting closer to what disclosure is all about.
Misleading Title (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
It's pretty frigging close, really. Access to accuser's evidence seems pretty important. "Tell me, Mr. DotCom... What good is a court... if you are unable to defend yourself?"
Maybe next ruling will be that neither DotCom or his lawyers are allowed to attend the proceedings! Surely, his lawyers (defending him) are "bogging down the proceedings" too. Things would go faster if it was just the U.S. alone presenting their side to the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Extradition does not decide guilt. It decides whether you are the person being sought to face charges in the other jurisdiction and whether the charges are extraditable to the other jurisdiction. Evidence of guilt is mostly irrelevant to those questions.
Extradition and Secret Prisons (aka black sites) = Who cares if you're guilty? We'll throw you in our clink and spend a few years mulling over what we're going to charge you with (see Bradley Manning). All of this is highly unconstitutional, but hey, the world has changed since 9/11, and that's all you need to know.
Dotcom's best hope now is to flee to another country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
Re: (Score:3)
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. Prosecutors have arrested the executive boards of ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and many other ISPs for their customers using internet connections to illegally download songs and movies.
BAZINGA!
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Monster Cable Exec Too (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget to arrest the Monster Cable Exec too! Their cables allow people who bought movies and songs to enjoy them at a higher quality than their license permitted!
Re: (Score:2)
Should we throw in the copper mining company executives as well? After all, the copper make Monster Cable possible.
Re:Monster Cable Exec Too (Score:4, Funny)
What?! No! Monster Cables are made from gold and faerie sweat. That's how they can improve the fidelity of digital signals transmitted over short distances.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this piracy would be possible without the aiding and abetting of the entertainment industry themselves. After all, if they didn't make the movies, pirates wouldn't have anything to steal! So bang goes the gavel on the CEOs of Universal, Columbia, Paramount, etc.
While we're at it, if it wasn't for the Congress-critters, these laws wouldn't exist to be broken in the first place. Judge, I think you know what must be done...
Re: (Score:2)
The guy at Best Buy said that oxygen-free Monster cables offer much faster download speeds on pirated movies than any other cable brand.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another proof that everything has good sides to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. See, these guys complied with the Fed's warrant-less wiretapping program. They give something to the government, the government gives something back to them. That's how it works.
Remember the CEO of Qwest who refused to play ball? Guess where he is now...
Example (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...
And then the yanks wonder why we don't like them.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...
"Starting [wikipedia.org]"?
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest irony is people think this is something new. The other sad fact is how many American's don't know, don't care to know. The last sad fact is that some think its right. And are glad to see individuals punished to suit an institutions goals. The philosophical education of American's in general is extremely lacking.
We all know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because if you get big enough to matter, you'll be introduced to concept of "you are a terrorist".
Horray! (Score:1)
To Gitmo with his fat ass
And the Steamroller begins (Score:5, Insightful)
"The appeals court ruled that disclosure would 'bog down the process' and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice"
If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process... Good luck getting a fair trial in the USA where the judge, prosecutor and all aspects of the legal system are under the control of the corporations. I suspect they won't be happy until Kim Dotcom winds up like Aaron Swartz.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the same bullshit excuse the Apple v. Samsung jury used to disregard prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. "Due process" is no process at all if the powers and the courts decide you're not due any process at all. For historical instance... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry. Kim Dotcom won't roll over that easy...
Seriously. He's not that easy to roll over... just sayin'
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
In its ruling, the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing is not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the U.S. is simply to prove it has a valid case to answer.
IANAL, so I dont know if this is normal or not; its possible that it is. It would be nice if any international law folks can answer that question (rather than all the wild hysteria and speculation we're seeing).
You have to remember that some courts really are not concerned with guilt or innocence-- if you are appealing a ruling due to a procedural problems, I believe that claiming "but im innocent" will not help as the appeals court doesnt care.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember that some courts really are not concerned with guilt or innocence-- if you are appealing a ruling due to a procedural problems, I believe that claiming "but im innocent" will not help as the appeals court doesnt care.
True, the courts really don't care about guilt or innocence on an appeals based on procedural issues. What should bother everyone is that he's being denied disclosure of evidence to which the crown has made their case. NZ law and Canuck law are very similar, in both cases the crown must offer full disclosure of evidence when the accused is brought before the judge *insert various reasons* and basically declares innocence on summery or indictable offences. Full disclosure of course is all the evidence so
Re: (Score:2)
You did not read very carefully. No decision to extradite has been made. AFAICT theyre saying that what mattersis whether the US has a sufficient case for extradition; his innocence and guilt are not relevant to that discussion, and they do not interested in determining them.
He will be tried, locked up and done in a heartbeat. Everything to appease the *AA masters.
You didnt read the part about "wild hysterical speculation", did you?
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:4, Insightful)
This is slightly different. This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
The US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith. That should be all they need for an extradition hearing.
Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case. And Dotcom deserves a chance to refute that.
US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith.
What evidence is that that any of the US's actions in this case have been done in good faith?
Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
Re: (Score:2)
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
Wasn't he operating servers in Virginia?
Re: (Score:2)
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
Since you brought it up, at least be specific:
A previously convicted finnish-german citizen who worked with the FBI before (ratting out fellow criminals to get a reduced sentence for himself).
That last part is important. There's a lot of things that can legally put you into US jurisdiction. It's not always what you and I would consider just, but it's the reality. I've got a little bit of experience in this field because the movie mafia tried to sue me in a California court many years ago because I had the D
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice theoretical issue, and I do in fact agree that the US courts tend towards arrogance when it comes to jurisdiction. Nevertheless, nothing will be changed in time for this particular case, so the facts as they are today are what matters.
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:4, Insightful)
If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process...
By that excellent logic, they should be able to bar DotCom from having any lawyers. Surely, the defense lawyers are "bogging down the process" too? Also, an impartial judge "bogs down the process" by listening to the case.
In our future, courts will become more efficient if this argument is accepted (can they appeal?). Optimal and speedy process is the one where accused is declared guilty right after the charges are read.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the next big thing... "trials" based on the old soviet union model.. A "judge", the "prosecutor", and a gallery filled with drafted people as witnesses to show that the "trial" was fair.. Woe be unto any of them who did not "toe the partyline".. The accused and his lawyer were no where to be found, or more correctly the accused was rotting away in Lubianka prison, and he had what passed for a "defense lawyer", who was employed by the prosecutors office.. Oh yes, every one of the gallery witnesses wou
Re: (Score:2)
You have to consider the point of the hearing and the appeal. This docket is only concerned with the extradition request. It is not a trial.
The US is asking NZ to turn Dotcom over. Dotcom is fighting the request in NZ court, and he appears to have requested the entire case against him in complete detail. That makes no sense at an extradition hearing, because NZ only has to decide if extradition for trial for the actual charges is warranted. The appeals court is correct: a summary of the evidence the US
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the trial is for, and NZ doesn't have standing to hear such a case.
Cause he did not break any laws there?
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody is trying to prosecute him for breaking NZ laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Saudi Arabia doesn't have an extradition treaty with the United States, this will not happen.
New Zealand, however, does.
Holy God, people, do you even understand what extradition means?
Re: (Score:3)
Who modded you up?
This is not a trial about the case and thus the evidence he requests is not important. This is an extradition trial, in which the US government would not even present said evidence, because they do not have to prove he is guilty. What they have to convince the court of is something entirely different - namely that he should be extradited to the US. In order to do that, they have to prove that they have a case at all, not that they are going to win it.
Bogging down the process is a usual str
By virtue of logic... (Score:3, Insightful)
If he's found guilty of "facilitating massive copyright fraud" because of the product he offered, then it sets a precedent which will spell doom for the following good fellows:
- American Airlines, United Flight and United Airlines should be found guilty of "facilitating terrorist attacks" since their planes were used.
- Alcoholic product makers should be found guilty of "facilitating disorderly conduct, rape and drunk driving"
- Car makers should be found guilty of "facilitating reckless endangerment and road rage"
- Gun makers should be found guilty of "facilitating homicides and mass murders"
- All ISPs should be found guilty of "facilitating exchange of child pornography material" through their network
- I wouldn't want to be one of the civil engineers who "facilitated suicide" by designing those bridges they jump off of
Then again: USA! USA! USA! Fuck logic. Money talks.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like money changed hands (Score:4, Insightful)
How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.
This looks like yet another DOJ politically motivated prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they will drop all modicum of impartiality and due process and extradite him anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Empire to empire relations are different from empire to vassal state.
Shades of the Napster case (Score:2)
It's one thing to run the equivalent of an open anonymous FTP site, but once you have an inkling that most users are doing illegal stuff with it, there's a responsibility imposed on you to do something effective about it.
If you don't, the law assumes you're a bad guy.
While I see their point, this blows. Megaupload was the best way to swap all kinds of files. I mainly miss it for the ability to send huge amounts of non-confidential data to clients and friends, and to legally share things like video and audio
People are overreacting. (Score:2)
A lot of people here seem to be making this out to some kind of grand conspiracy, when it's not. Evidence will be submitted and reviewed by all involved parties if and when a trial actually happens. Right now, there is no trial set because he's not even in the U.S.. NZ isn't the country holding the trial, so for people to think they deserve to have access to all of the information (at least publicly since they very well could have been given access behind closed doors) is rather silly. Unless NZ had rea
It's about time (Score:2)
Isn't this the guy doing the gangnam style dance almost everywhere?
Oh, wait...
Bogged down? (Score:2)
So, bogging down the legal process is actually grounds for totally ignoring it and shipping someone off to the US for 'justice'?
Wow. I thought NZ was better than that.
Re:a summary of the U.S. case would suffice... (Score:4, Funny)
US: "He's guilty. And has bad hair."
NZ: "Okay then, you can have him."
Re: (Score:2)
It would be far too costly to uphold appearances on assassinating Dotcom in comparison to just buying local legislative and judiciary.
it is just how the process works (Score:2)
You go to foreign nation break their laws you and you are stuck with them. Operate a business in a foreign nation and you are stuck with them too.
He did operate a business in the USA; however, it was hiring a US company and not actually doing it himself which becomes tricky. Use a CDN that is in the USA and you are subject to all US laws. Wonder if this works for FedEx...a physical CDN.
He personally is the target despite being a corporation; which is inequitable because we all know CEOs are rarely EVER to