4 ms·

What are your views on how it relates to the sovereignty of a nation?

by drdeca 11y ago

forrestthewoods 11y ago
New Zealand is a sovereign nation. One that has laws which established residency for Kim Dotcom. And one that has signed international treaties with other sovereign nations. New Zealand has used their own judicial system to reach this decision. They are behaving in accordance to their own laws and agreements they were willing participants to. In short, there's nothing wrong here. Not in the slightest.
- zorpner 11y ago
  Don't conflate lawful/unlawful with right/wrong -- it always leads to incoherent positions.
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    I've not.
    - it_learnses 11y ago
      Yes you have.
    - eliudnir 11y ago
      - I'm glad. He's a scumbag who profited TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS off content that he knew to be copyright infringing. He deserves prison time. Riiiiight.... Not conflating at all....
      - forrestthewoods 11y ago
        It is my opinion that Kim Dotcom's actions are both unlawful and wrong. They could have been unlawful but not wrong. Or lawful but wrong. Or even lawful and not wrong. However it is my opinion that they are simultaneously unlawful and wrong. Both the unlawfulness and wrongness are arguable on their own terms and merits without reference to the other. You're free to disagree with me. You may hold a different opinion. That's perfectly fine. However a dissenting opinion does not mean I conflated the situation. It does not mean that I'm acting irrationally. It's simple a different opinion. I don't mind downvotes for disagreeing with the HN HiveMind.
        vacri 11y ago
        > I don't mind downvotes for disagreeing with the HN HiveMind. When you have to hedge your comments like this, it's generally because your arguments are weak.
        88e282102ae2e5b 11y ago
        Your opinions by themselves are irrelevant. I care why I should agree with you. Convince me. Give it a try. That's the point of HN. If I just wanted to hear what strangers think without any discussion of the larger issues, I'd be on reddit. So NZ has laws and treaties. Great. Should they? What's the tradeoff? Is the prosecution of someone who is clearly guilty allowing a greater evil to occur? Is the copyright system and corporate influence of governments a problem? I would have loved to hear the answers to any of these questions, but what I got was essentially "he is a criminal" and "laws shouldn't be broken". Sure.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    Most people would agree that profiting off somebody else's labor without their permission and without remuneration is wrong, and hence it is correct that it is unlawful. I see no incoherence in this particular case. Unfortunately, to many on HN, when people freely take the information created by content creators it's "disruption of outdated business models", but when the NSA freely takes their own information it's an "invasion of privacy". They simply don't realize that everybody would like to control the spread of information that is significant to themselves. This is why certain laws exist, yet they denounce some laws (such as copyright) as "wrong". The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
- philliphaydon 11y ago
  As a kiwi. This entire case makes me sick. This should have been thrown out of court a long time ago. This is a political move and nothing else. It's NZ on its knees sucking off the United States. From day 1 it's been illegal. Hidden process, and laws changed to make the process more legal. I hate my country now.
  - craigds 11y ago
    This is exactly how I feel about it. It's not just this case obviously. I used to be proud to be a New Zealander, but the last 5-10 years have made it dreadfully obvious we're actually being operated by foreign and commercial interests, and local/national leaders have no interest in changing that. Sure, it's probably not as bad as certain other places, but it no longer fills me with pride. I'm tired of this country :(
    - vacri 11y ago
      I went to NZ in January, and I was a bit sad how much traction the LotR films had gained as 'proxy for kiwiness'. From the airline to the airport to posters and promotional material everywhere; on city streets, in supermarkets... it almost felt like LotR had become part of the national psyche, that LotR was NZ, rather than something cool that NZ had done. I imagine it's waned a bit by now, though.
  - feelix 11y ago
    As another kiwi I couldn't agree more. It has been sickening to watch NZ bend over backwards to serve the USA. This has nothing to do with copyright infringement, and everything to do with bending over for the USA to maintain its benefits.
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    Would you rather your country act as a safe haven to criminals in exchange for money?
    - philliphaydon 11y ago
- xupybd 11y ago
  What he did should not be legal here. But he may have been clever enough to be at least in the grey area of the law. At least the law in NZ. From a strictly moral standpoint, he was ripping off the copyright holders no doubt and should not have been able to get away with it. The problem is he is getting extradited on these parts of the treaty: Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities, or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained. … 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. I'm not sure you can argue that he did that, and if that is the case, you have to ask what is going on here? Of course, there is much to this that I don't know, but still it's a bit fishy.
bmh_ca 11y ago
The name for the concern about infringement upon sovereignty by arresting a citizen, in this case, in another state is "extraterritoriality". There is a presumption against extraterritoriality. In other words, it is presumed that in a sovereign state the laws of other sovereigns do not apply. The exception to the presumption against extraterritoriality is agreement among states or a reciprocal judicial respect. The agreement is usually a treaty. The reciprocal respect is called "comity". There are other exceptions to the presumption against extraterritoriality, but I do not think they apply here. I have not looked at the details, but New Zealand and the U.S.A. must have an extradition treaty or otherwise the judge determining extradition believes that the judicial system in the U.S.A. is "comparable" (i.e. comity applies). The case looks appealable. So long as the independence of the judiciary is not impugned, neither is the sovereignty of New Zealand, and they may extradite as they feel fit.

What are your views on how it relates to the sovereignty of a nation?

by drdeca 11y ago

What are your views on how it relates to the sovereignty of a nation?

New Zealand is a sovereign nation. One that has laws which established residency for Kim Dotcom. And one that has signed international treaties with other sovereign nations. New Zealand has used their own judicial system to reach this decision. They are behaving in accordance to their own laws and agreements they were willing participants to. In short, there's nothing wrong here. Not in the slightest.

zorpner 11y ago
Don't conflate lawful/unlawful with right/wrong -- it always leads to incoherent positions.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  I've not.
  - it_learnses 11y ago
    Yes you have.
  - eliudnir 11y ago
    - I'm glad. He's a scumbag who profited TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS off content that he knew to be copyright infringing. He deserves prison time. Riiiiight.... Not conflating at all....
    - forrestthewoods 11y ago
      It is my opinion that Kim Dotcom's actions are both unlawful and wrong. They could have been unlawful but not wrong. Or lawful but wrong. Or even lawful and not wrong. However it is my opinion that they are simultaneously unlawful and wrong. Both the unlawfulness and wrongness are arguable on their own terms and merits without reference to the other. You're free to disagree with me. You may hold a different opinion. That's perfectly fine. However a dissenting opinion does not mean I conflated the situation. It does not mean that I'm acting irrationally. It's simple a different opinion. I don't mind downvotes for disagreeing with the HN HiveMind.
      - vacri 11y ago
        > I don't mind downvotes for disagreeing with the HN HiveMind. When you have to hedge your comments like this, it's generally because your arguments are weak.
      - 88e282102ae2e5b 11y ago
        Your opinions by themselves are irrelevant. I care why I should agree with you. Convince me. Give it a try. That's the point of HN. If I just wanted to hear what strangers think without any discussion of the larger issues, I'd be on reddit. So NZ has laws and treaties. Great. Should they? What's the tradeoff? Is the prosecution of someone who is clearly guilty allowing a greater evil to occur? Is the copyright system and corporate influence of governments a problem? I would have loved to hear the answers to any of these questions, but what I got was essentially "he is a criminal" and "laws shouldn't be broken". Sure.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  Most people would agree that profiting off somebody else's labor without their permission and without remuneration is wrong, and hence it is correct that it is unlawful. I see no incoherence in this particular case. Unfortunately, to many on HN, when people freely take the information created by content creators it's "disruption of outdated business models", but when the NSA freely takes their own information it's an "invasion of privacy". They simply don't realize that everybody would like to control the spread of information that is significant to themselves. This is why certain laws exist, yet they denounce some laws (such as copyright) as "wrong". The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
philliphaydon 11y ago
As a kiwi. This entire case makes me sick. This should have been thrown out of court a long time ago. This is a political move and nothing else. It's NZ on its knees sucking off the United States. From day 1 it's been illegal. Hidden process, and laws changed to make the process more legal. I hate my country now.
- craigds 11y ago
  This is exactly how I feel about it. It's not just this case obviously. I used to be proud to be a New Zealander, but the last 5-10 years have made it dreadfully obvious we're actually being operated by foreign and commercial interests, and local/national leaders have no interest in changing that. Sure, it's probably not as bad as certain other places, but it no longer fills me with pride. I'm tired of this country :(
  - vacri 11y ago
    I went to NZ in January, and I was a bit sad how much traction the LotR films had gained as 'proxy for kiwiness'. From the airline to the airport to posters and promotional material everywhere; on city streets, in supermarkets... it almost felt like LotR had become part of the national psyche, that LotR was NZ, rather than something cool that NZ had done. I imagine it's waned a bit by now, though.
- feelix 11y ago
  As another kiwi I couldn't agree more. It has been sickening to watch NZ bend over backwards to serve the USA. This has nothing to do with copyright infringement, and everything to do with bending over for the USA to maintain its benefits.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Would you rather your country act as a safe haven to criminals in exchange for money?
  - philliphaydon 11y ago
xupybd 11y ago
What he did should not be legal here. But he may have been clever enough to be at least in the grey area of the law. At least the law in NZ. From a strictly moral standpoint, he was ripping off the copyright holders no doubt and should not have been able to get away with it. The problem is he is getting extradited on these parts of the treaty: Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities, or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained. … 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. I'm not sure you can argue that he did that, and if that is the case, you have to ask what is going on here? Of course, there is much to this that I don't know, but still it's a bit fishy.

bmh_ca 11y ago

The name for the concern about infringement upon sovereignty by arresting a citizen, in this case, in another state is "extraterritoriality". There is a presumption against extraterritoriality. In other words, it is presumed that in a sovereign state the laws of other sovereigns do not apply. The exception to the presumption against extraterritoriality is agreement among states or a reciprocal judicial respect. The agreement is usually a treaty. The reciprocal respect is called "comity". There are other exceptions to the presumption against extraterritoriality, but I do not think they apply here. I have not looked at the details, but New Zealand and the U.S.A. must have an extradition treaty or otherwise the judge determining extradition believes that the judicial system in the U.S.A. is "comparable" (i.e. comity applies). The case looks appealable. So long as the independence of the judiciary is not impugned, neither is the sovereignty of New Zealand, and they may extradite as they feel fit.