Judge Allows Kim Dotcom To Livestream Court Hearing (mashable.com) 72
Kim Dotcom has been granted the right to livestream his extradition appeal on YouTube. The appeal hearing began Monday, but will be livestreamed tomorrow because "the cameraman needs to set this up professionally and implement the judge's live streaming rules." tweets Kim Dotcom. Mashable reports: "The United States, which wants Dotcom extradited from New Zealand, is against the request. Dotcom says a livestream is the only way to ensure a fair hearing. The U.S. is seeking the extradition of Dotcom and other Megaupload co-founders in hopes of taking them to court in America on charges of money-laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement. The charges stem from the operation of file-sharing website Megaupload, founded by Dotcom in 2005 and once the 13th most popular website on the internet. Users could upload movies, music and other content to the site and share with others, a practice the U.S. considers copyright infringement. The website reportedly made around $175 million before the FBI took it down in 2012. The U.S. says Megaupload cost copyright holders around $500 million, though Dotcom says it's not his fault users chose to upload the shared copyrighted material. Dotcom was arrested in 2012 after police raided his home, but was released on bail. A judge ruled in favor of his extradition to the U.S. in 2015, though Dotcom said at the time the judge was not interested in a fair hearing." Dotcom plans to revive Megaupload on January 20, 2017, urging people to "buy bitcoin while cheap," since he claims the launch will send the bitcoin price soaring way above its current $575 value. Every file transfer taking place over Megaupload "will be linked to a tiny Bitcoin micro transaction," Dotcom posted on Twitter.
Hilarious (Score:1)
So... I'm not going to pay the actual rights holder for the material... but I'm going to pay someone else? Not really following the logic here.
Re:Selling stolen stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Re:Selling stolen stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe, if he was American.
This is illegal anyways, you can't be extradited to countries known to torture prisoners.
Re: (Score:3)
I wanted to ask about this. EU countries have either refused extradition or required guarantees about how their citizens will be treated by the US. Does New Zealand have similar human rights laws?
Not Selling stolen stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy was selling stuff stolen from US companies, and he doesn't think he should have to answer charges in the US?
Was he selling stolen things? Or did he make illegal copies and sell those?
Did he actually copy and sell things? Or was it the users who sold the illegal copies?
Did the users actually sell stolen copies? Or did they just give them away to others?
Did he have a DMCA-style takedown process?
What did he do different from DropBox and other online storage sites?
Was he a US citizen, or ever been to the US? Did his company operate in the US?
Were his crimes violent and criminal in nature, which would warrant extradition, or is this essentially a civil case?
Re: (Score:1)
"What did he do different from DropBox and other online storage sites"
1. Crucially, they didn't remove infringing material when put on notice. Instead, they just removed particular specified URLs. They left the infringing files on the MU servers and (knowingly) continued to serve up them up via different URLs/accounts. This takes them outside any safe-harbor provisions IMHO.
2. They financially incentivized people to share links, and their own Skype chats confirm that they knew that most of the sharing was o
Re: (Score:3)
Not all links are infringing, though. For example, imagine that if every time a video on Youtube got a take down notice, Youtube removed all copies of that video. How many official (and therefore non-infringing) videos would get removed?
It would be rather perverse if doing data de-duplication on identical files made someone guilty of contributory copyright infringement, given th
Re: (Score:1)
Right, I used to work for a online storage company (not naming names, but its big claim to fame used to be that You could Send It, before it renamed itself and decided to Hightail it out), and we would get takedown notices all the time. What did we do? Nuke the access to the URL but kept the files pending whatever processes.
You know what else? We also would keep serving up 'the same file' if our storage deduplicated it on the backend. We didn't write it, (well we did the orginal version but that is neither
Re: (Score:2)
they didn't remove infringing material when put on notice
1) This was a New Zealand company, not subjected to US law, however much you'd like US law to apply world-wide.
2) The company did actually comply to DMCA requests as a courtesy and was actually asked by the FBI to retain certain copyright infringing material. These FBI requested files, are now being used to prove that copyright was being infringed. Even though this was only retained at the behest of the FBI.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that will make the slightest bit of difference. Marc Emery was extradited to the US for selling seeds. Something that thousands of people are selling in a large number of states with no repercussions. Not a single person existed to say they were even harmed by him let alone suffered violence. The American government abducted a Canadian who had never set foot in the USA let a
Re: (Score:2)
If what Marc did was so innocent, why did he plead guilty to the charge and take a 5 year prison sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
How a first-time drug charge became a life sentence for this mother of two [fusion.net]
Re:Selling stolen stuff (Score:5, Informative)
No he wasn't. He was simply providing a platform to host online files. All he did was not bend to US media cartels the way YouTube or Dropbox did nor give the US government control over the systems the way Amazon or Microsoft does. At one point his system was considered the best file upload facility as it was fully encrypted so no company or government could see what actually was on it.
The US government wanted him, a company not even based out of the US, to implement DMCA controls similar to YouTube's (where any one could claim infringement and the content taken down), he refused and his site was taken offline and he was arrested.
Re: (Score:3)
No he wasn't. He was simply providing a platform to host online files. All he did was not bend to US media cartels the way YouTube or Dropbox did nor give the US government control over the systems the way Amazon or Microsoft does. At one point his system was considered the best file upload facility as it was fully encrypted so no company or government could see what actually was on it.
The US government wanted him, a company not even based out of the US, to implement DMCA controls similar to YouTube's (where any one could claim infringement and the content taken down), he refused and his site was taken offline and he was arrested.
If what he was doing was so above board, why didn't he sell advertising on his site in an open and honest way? Why all the money laundering and hidden transactions? He made it clear from the way he handled money from his advertisers that he knew he was doing something wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So are you saying he made his own version of the Double Dutch Irish Sandwich to pay as little tax as possible?
Wake me when Apple and the rest are prevented from doing that by being raided.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... probably because old habits die hard...
Re:Selling stolen stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright infringement. Theft is a criminal act. Copyright infringement is civil. Civil violations shouldn't result in extraditions ever.
If the movie giants weren't behind this; if someone distributed petabytes of indie films that barely had enough to get their films out, this case would have never gotten this far.
18 U.S. Code S 2319 - Criminal infringement of a c (Score:1)
18 U.S. Code S 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright
As well as several other crimes.
Sometimes, facts come in handy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
US Code? We're not talking about a US citizen, so US laws do not apply to him. Go away troll.
Re: (Score:2)
US laws only apply to events within US jurisdiction.
A company operating from New Zealand does NOT fall under US jurisdiction.
What you're implying, would make Saudi Arabian law enforceable in the US. I'd like to see someone being extradited to SA from the US for being pro-democracy, something which apparently gets you crucified (literally) in SA.
Unless of course, you're attempting to imply that US law should be enforceable everywhere else, but the reverse should not be the case.
#19 in the US - New Zealand extradition treaty (Score:2)
> US laws only apply to events within US jurisdiction.
> A company operating from New Zealand does NOT fall under US jurisdiction.
Extradition is governed by treaties, which are law in both countries. They tend to be either list type, which explcitly list extradictable offenses, or "common criminality" type, in which someone guilty of a crime can be extradicted if it's a crime in BOTH countries.
The US - New Zealand treaty, which is law in New Zealand, is the list type. It says people can be ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurry up and get the fuck out of my country Kim (Score:5, Funny)
For Non-NZers wondering how a NZer might disagree to another NZer on this issue, please enjoy:
I can see you are yet another right wing National supporting cunt with his head up his arse. Take John Key's cock out of your mouth for a minute and you might make better points you stink hua.
Love him or hate him, the process by which Dotcom was buggered by these arse bandits was a complete balls up. The GCSB broke the law, your mate Key lied about it and before K-bar is charged with anything an entire business and all its employees were flushed down the gurgler.
And for what? For doing what youtube still do!
It bullocks plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The New Zealand government has been bowing down to the US government for years. Look at what they did to Bruce Simpson where the NZ tax office was used to shut down his "cruise missile" project (actions that were illegal under the laws the tax office is supposed to operate under I believe).
Re: (Score:1)
Even IF he is guilty as sin, he should be treated as innocent until proven. They have done many highly questionable and possibly illegal stuff to try and get at him. If you can't bring in a guilty party by following the law, you have no just society.
Pay to Play (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny enough, they both apparently use two "L"s in the spelling of their names, while you used one.
Re: (Score:1)
Dotcom couldn't ever have competed with the Clinton Hollywood fanbois who not only fling $$$'s ay Hill the shill, they give her cleb brown-noses for as long as she continues to show obeisance to aipac.
Dotcom did do everything he could to stay legit - he spend a lot of resources instituting a comprehensive DMCA takedown protocol but the same old same olds, kept issuing blanket takedowns right across IP that they had no legal title to. Megaupload received thousands of complaints from IP owners, producers, an
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, complaining about one candidate does not automatically imply that a person supports the other. I hate all four current candidates, but frankly, there wasn't even someone better in the primaries either.
justice demands (Score:4, Insightful)
Justice demands that all trials be live streamed. The kangaroo courts cannot be trusted. All their actions must be subject to monitoring by the people.
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand, mate. Different continent - no kangaroos.
Re: justice demands (Score:2)
The kind of kangaroos I had in mind can be found throughout the United States, and are especially abundant in the eastern district of New York. No doubt New Zealand has their fair share of judicial marsupials as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, I don't have any particular desire to see divorcing couples' dirty laundry spread all over the internet. But on the other hand, I've known a few too many people who were basically thrown under the bus by biased divorce courts. So I'm really not sure if keeping some trials secret is all that good an idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: justice demands (Score:2)
Hahaha - lobby to amend the badlaws. Sorry my brother, I don't have millions to spend on lawful bribes. And I have no family connections. So truly, no one in power gives a shit about my opinions.
Fwiw, I personally have managed to stay clear of the infernal meat grinder that is the "justice" system. Thank the gods! But I've seen it at work, and it's appalling. I struggle to think of a single good thing to say about it. I suppose I can say it's taught me to distrust the juridical form in general as a fundame
Re: (Score:1)
Re: justice demands (Score:2)
I watch zero legal dramas. Ever. They make me physically sick to my stomach.
Right - not bad laws - badlaws. No space, single word. Correct politics begins with correct language.
If you think the political system in the States represents the interests of commoners, I do NOT want some of what you're smoking. That shit is too strong for me. I need to be able to walk home.
If "legal training" is necessary to appreciate the value of the badlaws, that only reinforces my point about the anti-popular nature of the j