Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Crime Government The Courts

Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited, Rules A New Zealand Court (reuters.com) 188

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited, Rules A New Zealand Court

Comments Filter:
  • whose fraud??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harvey the nerd ( 582806 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @01:41AM (#53898455)
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      at least they are not quoting billions and trillions....

      Yet.

      At this point, this case exists solely to justify the MPAA. Online movie piracy harming the industry is a debunked myth. Redbox makes what little profit they can, iTunes has it for the sake of being able to say they have it and Netflix is flat-out giving up on the movie model and making original content.
       

    • Re:whose fraud??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BlueStrat ( 756137 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @02:13AM (#53898537)

      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

      • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @03:45AM (#53898707)

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

        • Is the 'Golden Rule' a Donald Trump quote?
        • Re:whose fraud??? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @11:31AM (#53900079)
          That's not really true in this case. The music industry's U.S. revenue was $7 billion in 2015 [riaa.com]. The TV and movie industry's revenue was $131 billion in 2014 [mpaa.org] So about $140 billion total.

          U.S. ISP revenue was $97 billion in 2016 [ibisworld.com]. The U.S. consumer electronics industry revenue is over $200 billion [cta.tech]. The Internet publishing, broadcasting, and search industry's revenue was about $110 billion in 2014 [census.gov]. 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [sony.net] was 1,128 billion Yen for the audio division (page 14), 660 billion Yen for the music division (page 15).

          Their 2000 revenue [sony.net] was 935 billion Yen for the audio division (page 47), 709 billion Yen for the music division (page 498).

          By 2003 [sony-latin.com] 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.)
        • In the US, the golden rule applies. He with the gold makes the rules.

          Quite true, but luckily for Kim he's spending his time and money in New Zealand courts. Also luckily for Kim, New Zealand judges tend to be a pretty independent lot, and while I'm sure the US is putting huge pressure on the New Zealand Government, the judiciary here are quite capable of telling the Government to mind their own business.

          As an aside, I have seen this in person. At a social function years ago, a District Court judge (I think, certainly a judge of one type or another) called the former Prime M

      • Re:whose fraud??? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by LeftCoastThinker ( 4697521 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @08:59AM (#53899333)

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          It should start with:

          "The bottom line is if a big US company claims you stole from them..."

          Since no theft nor loss occurred, all that there is is a claim of loss and/or theft.

          I mean, the bottom line is if you're in North Korea, all you have to do is try to destabilise the government through acts of violent terrorism and you're executed by the state.

          The uncomfortable problem with it, like with your posts' claims, is that there doesn't actually have to have been a crime committed in reality for you to be puni

        • Re:whose fraud??? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by JonnyCalcutta ( 524825 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @09:48AM (#53899505)

          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??? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by currently_awake ( 1248758 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @10:12AM (#53899595)
            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.
          • Books, music, and plays existed prior to copyright. Some rather famous stuff was written without having to offer eternal royalties as payment. They just got paid for live performances. Note that most curren musicians make most of their money from live performances. The copyright cartels ensure they make little or no revenue from CD's or streaming.
          • Plenty of professional musicians make a living playing out of copyright music (most classical music).

            Musicians make money mostly from performance of music. Record labels make money from the selling and playing of recorded music, that's not even the musician's part of the pie.

            • But it can and should be. The record labels traditionally put up tens of thousands of dollars for the recording studio and to launch the music, but with the digital age, you can have a comparable in home studio for a few thousand and digital distribution channels essentially cost you nothing. The record labels are slowly dying and eventually the digital distribution of music will net more money for artists, especially if they would wise up and form a guild like the SAG or some such, where they could force

            • Plenty of professional musicians make a living playing out of copyright music (most classical music).

              Musicians make money mostly from performance of music. Record labels make money from the selling and playing of recorded music, that's not even the musician's part of the pie.

              (Disclaimer: anecdotal story) Apparently it is if they are serious about it. I'm not a musician but lots of my friends are or work in music industry somehow, and I ended up at a dinner with them and a friend who was from out of town performing (not claiming that's not part of the picture for various reasons) who had a alt college band back in the 80's and the discussion got around to this. The take away quote was "any musician that assumes that the music industry isn't about licensing is just kidding thems

        • Re:whose fraud??? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by crashumbc ( 1221174 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @09:55AM (#53899523)

          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.

        • without copyright we would not be able to have professional actors or musicians or authors among others.

          So, do you believe that without copyright Shakespeare wouldn't have written his plays, and there wouldn't have been professional actors to play them for him? Or that Mozart wouldn't have written his music, and there wouldn't have been professional musicians to play it for him?

        • "On a moral level, Kim knew he was stealing from copyright holders, and making millions doing it."

          How is this different to YouTube or DropBox or iCloud or Facebook?

        • by nut ( 19435 )

          ... and ignored requests to take down infringing material ...

          Bullshit there. Megaupload removed every link to infringing material where notice was given that it was infringing copyright in accordance with the DMCA. They were in fact very careful to comply with the DMCA. What they didn't do was remove links to the same material that weren't in the notice.

          Megaupload hashed every file and if more than one person uploaded the same file, they only stored it once and linked both accounts to the same file. So their approach makes sense - if Peter and Paul both upload the

          • ... By not removing the ACTUAL DAMN FILE, just a link to it, they failed to comply with the DMCA request, which requires deletion of all files associated with the request, not just links. So no, thanks for playing, but that is not DMCA compliance and I was quite correct in my assertion.

    • Re:whose fraud??? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @03:21AM (#53898667) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The normal court proceedings? Almost all cases are plea bargained now. Few ever get a jury trial because they are slapped with multiple charges. If they can't get you on this charge then they'll get you on obstruction just for fighting it.

        • Re: whose fraud??? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @05:17AM (#53898873) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • for example, there's far more murders in usa than there are convicted murderers - and same applies to all other kind of cases.

            Theres also an inverse at play with this shocker as well.

            Cop decides he's certain the husband killed the wife. No evidence, just "He seems the sort". So they they tell the guy "We're going to get you the death penalty if you dont take the plea bargain". The husband may well be innocent, but at this point it doesnt matter anymore. He's fucking terrified of spending 10 years in solitar

            • You have to be smart enough not to lie, that's all. If you're at least that smart, then none of that situation touches you.

              If you're willing to lie, under oath, not even to defend yourself but to implicate yourself, there is nothing that the Court can really do to stop you from coming to an agreement with the prosecutor that sends you away.

              Yes, it is a problem for dishonest idiots. But it can be solved very easily on an individual basis.

          • I agree that plea bargaining is problematic, as it also leads to massive overcharging (from what a prosecutor knows that they could reasonably get a conviction on) in order to scare the suspect into pleading guilty rather than facing the potential of life in prison for driving a getaway car or some such.

            OTOH, the real world is a lot messier than TV crime shows, and in the real world, unless you have a video tape of the crime being committed or a tape of the suspect confessing to a confidant, or the crime wa

  • by Anonymous Coward

    He's still got two more courts to go yet (Appeals and Supreme). Assuming he's still got enough of cash squirrelled away this circus will go on for a few more years yet.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      He's has plenty of cash still, but his accounts have been locked down by the US because he's a "fugitive".

      He's going to lose, when the US wants someone, they get them.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    One of the common justifications for illegal filesharing given here is that the record companies (studios, publishers) etc are ripping off the talent, and that the talent typically makes peanuts for their the work. Therefore filesharing is really an act taken against, or in indifference to, the greedy capitalists who were at best passive participants in the creative act.

    Suppose the creative talent(s) - the band in the case of an audio recording, the author(s) in the case of a textbook, the director and sta

    • by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @02:13AM (#53898539) Journal

      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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I would. I've never heard Metallica again.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20, 2017 @03:28AM (#53898681)
      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.
    • My justification (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hackwrench ( 573697 ) <hackwrench@hotmail.com> on Monday February 20, 2017 @03:52AM (#53898729) Homepage Journal
      My justification is along the lines stated by Kopimism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
  • Bad Decisions (Score:2, Informative)

    by muphin ( 842524 )
    They are going after pirates and Kim, cause they loose hundreds of millions on their bad decisions to make crappy movies.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Last year was another good one for Hollywood, despite numerous flops.

      The goal here is to further criminalise copyright infringement. The extradition is actually for conspiracy to defraud. That's how they go after people they don't like, they manufacture criminal charges.

      It's pointless now, the service is long gone, many others have taken its place, serious pirates are all on VPNs. The only thing they stand to gain is to demonstrate that US law is global law and anyone who annoys a large corporation must hav

      • The purpose is to prove that they can milk copyrights for all eternity. If your business plan was based on milking virtual assets you'd do everything you could to protect those money making assets too.
  • Why this is wrong: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aaron B Lingwood ( 1288412 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @02:29AM (#53898575)

    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: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How are they supposed to assist Assange? he hasn't been charged with anything and to be honest he has gone from a useful crusader to just being a total twat, let him burn. As for dotcom, he aint no NZ citizen so how are they failing to protect a NZ citizen? he is a resident.
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      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.

      Neither will pissing off the United States, so I think the situation might be a bit more complicated than your fifth grade civics class suggests.

      It's best to leave grown up things to grown up.

      • by DMJC ( 682799 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @04:22AM (#53898783)
        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.
        • The America hating around the world has always bothered me with it's irrationality. It is akin to having a bodyguard protect you for decades, get shot and bleed for you, ask only that you treat them with respect, and they pay you (through imbalanced trade deals or outright foreign aid) for the pleasure... The deal the civilized world has had with the US for 70 plus years has been extraordinary. I guess the asshole attitude towards the US has finally reached the US citizens, because now we have Trump, and

        • Thank you for succinctly listing why Iran should have a nuclear weapons program.
        • Try that watch when the emus [wikipedia.org] get there first and nuke your ass.

        • America is probably going to get Australia dragged into a war with China

          Don't fool yourself; at the highest levels of influence, us Yanks are just as much the bitches of the "international old money feudal elite" (i.e. those snakelike fucks that Crown Colony countries pay homage to on their currency)... but I digress; Oz won't need our help dragging you into conflict with Chi-Com; the allure of your resources will eventually do that.

        • Why should we have to bend over for anybody?

          NIMBYs.

    • Treaties that align laws governing stuff like copyrights and extradition are part of the system protecting the NZ constituents. If someone in the USA pirated content of a NZ rights holder, then these treaties presumably ensure that the rights holder has some recourse. Whether NZ got a good deal in this case is another matter. IIRC NZ used to be fairly lenient on pirates since they got hosed on a regular basis with region locking.

      But the piracy thing apparently didn't stick, or it's not enough to warrant
      • There is no such thing. The only condition is that countries that do not allow the death penalty require that the person not be facing potential execution.

        Other than that, the requirement is that at least one of the things you're accused of is a legit type of crime. Like fraud. They're not going to examine the evidence, they're going to examine the accusation.

        The trial will determine the value of the evidence. That happens later. These steps do matter. The apparent important fact is that he and others are a

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      NZ should take the same approach as the USA, and give the US the middle finger.

      The US will not even extradite murderers
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89593559/The-case-of-the-bullet-fired-in-US-that-killed-a-teenager-in-Mexico

      Germany (where Kim Dotcom comes from) takes a different position to shooting innocents
      http://www.rferl.org/a/1084033.html

      • The case you cite in Mexico, there are a few things you should know about Mexico. It is basically a lawless state with every official and police officer corrupt and run by the drug cartels. Anyone who was not corrupt was systematically murdered over the last 20 years. US border patrol is ROUTINELY fired at by Mexican nationals who are running drugs and people across the border from the Mexico side. This teenager and 3 male friends attempted to enter the US illegally, they fought with border patrol agent

    • by Goaway ( 82658 )

      Australia is guilty of similar neglect with the lack of assistance to Assange.

      Help him with what, exactly? The man is on the run from a rape accusation. I don't know of many countries that will help you out with that.

      • The man is on the run from a rape accusation. I don't know of many countries that will help you out with that.

        Given that the "rape accusation" is utterly fabricated, every country should. The rape issue was created to give cause to punish him for leaking information that hurt the U.S.. An interesting timeline. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]

        • by Goaway ( 82658 )

          It's a shame there is no legal procedure he could make use of to prove the accusation is fabricated, then, isn't it?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Actually, the citizens of NZ and AU greatly benefit from good relations with the US. Consider what would happen if the US blocked all trading between the US and those states. What would happen to their economies? How many popular movies, games and software come from the US, not to mention physical goods from US companies? Consider if the US pulled all of our carrier groups back to US assets. What would happen between NZ and AU and China? I hope you can speak Mandarin, with your large amount of desirab

    • People are loyal to their paycheck. Clearly a better offer was made than the one the taxpayers/voters offered.
  • That's it!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Don't do business with americans

    • They weren't doing business with Americans. What it proves is not to travel to the US to do financial transactions if the transactions are not legal here. That's the thing that they did that causes other countries to be willing to hand them over.

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @03:51AM (#53898725)

    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.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @05:10AM (#53898861)

      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.

      • by Raenex ( 947668 )

        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.

        Which is which again? Because the fat shitstain was profiting from artists without paying them at all. The "product" he provided was a thin veneer for a pirate site.

        • by mishehu ( 712452 )
          Perhaps it was a thin veneer for pirating, however, there is a legitimate use otherwise for his service. That is, often times, enough to keep a product or service legal in the jurisdiction of the USA.
          • by Raenex ( 947668 )

            Yes, but there was evidence that they were facilitating copyright infringement. That's a big no-no.

        • Which is which again? Because the fat shitstain was profiting from artists without paying them at all. The "product" he provided was a thin veneer for a pirate site.

          From the artists? So Mega has a music upload business, and a search engine for it's files then? No. Mega was purely a file storage service. There was no functionality to search for music or infringing content on it. There was way to identify what content is what on its site. The download links weren't tied to file names which made any kind of indexing or even guessing at content on their site pointless. The only link that Mega had to piracy is that someone using their service to store data then posts links

          • by Raenex ( 947668 )

            So if you don't know which is which I urge you to get a clue followed by some perspective.

            I urge you to cut the bullshit. You already acknowledged he was a fat shitstain. You ignored what I wrote and made some shitty analogies instead. His site wasn't just a neutral download site. It was a thin veneer for piracy, and there was evidence to back that up via internal email. That's what fat shitstains do.

            For all your huffing and puffing about artists, this guy was nothing but a parasite.

            • You already acknowledged he was a fat shitstain.

              On a personal level, which has nothing to do with his business.

              You ignored what I wrote and made some shitty analogies instead.

              Nope I addressed it directly.

              His site wasn't just a neutral download site.

              His site provided a place to store data and share a link. Nothing more.

              It was a thin veneer for piracy,

              Conjecture.

              and there was evidence to back that up via internal email.

              There's evidence of every company that stores or moves bits at some point discussing the use of their platform for piracy.

              That's what fat shitstains do.

              I really get the feeling that you are incapable of separating a person from a business.

              I urge you to cut the bullshit.

              Yeah I will by ignoring what you say from this point. Quite frankly the level of bullshit increased infinitely when you joined th

              • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                On a personal level, which has nothing to do with his business.

                It has everything to do with his business. That's his history [wikipedia.org], running criminal enterprises. That he's a fat piece of shit just makes him easier to scorn.

                Conjecture.

                No, based on evidence and using common sense.

                There's evidence of every company that stores or moves bits at some point discussing the use of their platform for piracy.

                It went beyond that. [wikipedia.org]

                Yeah I will by ignoring what you say from this point.

                Of course you will, because your argument is indefensible. You're defending a parasite with a criminal history.

  • by jopsen ( 885607 ) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Monday February 20, 2017 @05:14AM (#53898867) Homepage
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      If he were prosecuted in New Zealand he'd get a fair trial. That's why he must be prosecuted in the USA. So that he gets an unfair trial.

  • Weird ruling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @05:36AM (#53898915) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.

      Are you saying the legal system of a country bends to opinion tweets? Shit I prefer if they stick to bending to foreign corporate will.

  • by JPMH ( 100614 ) on Monday February 20, 2017 @08:22AM (#53899235)

    The New Zealand Herald has the full text of the judgment with its article here [nzherald.co.nz]

    Paragraph 77 onwards of the judgment are an absolutely crushing demolition of the Dotcom team's arguments that facilitating copyright infringement on an industrial scale should not be considered "conspiracy to defraud".

    "Conspiracy to defraud" is extradictable to the USA; Dotcom & co are likely to be going away for a long time.

  • Judge should check film studios and record companies' revenue after shutting down Megauploads minus revenue before, adjusted for other factors. If they are not close to $500m case should be closed since it is an extortion.
  • Follow the money, follow the power, follow the influence.

    Do you guys think for a mother fucking SECOND if this was some tinpot little country, smaller than New Zealand, this would happen?
    Do you think, if NZ pushed for this, from an American, this would happen?

    This is retarded.

To program is to be.

Working...