5 ms·

I wonder if a time will come when the US will extradite the CEO of a hosting company for failing to filter content to the satisfaction of the proposed EU copyri

I wonder if a time will come when the US will extradite the CEO of a hosting company for failing to filter content to the satisfaction of the proposed EU copyright law.

tedunangst 8y ago
Generally the alleged activity must also be illegal in the country you are being extradited from.
- 6nf 8y ago
  I understand that Kim didn't actually break any NZ laws though?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    The explanation I've heard is that he had servers in the US, he paid people in the US, he made money from customers in the US by breaking the law in the US and therefore the US government position is that he is a criminal in the US and should face penalities here. Whether he did anything illegal in NZ or whether he should be extradited is obviously a question for NZ legal authorities. I've always felt conflicted about his case myself. On the one hand I have natural sympathies for people using software to share information. I also think American prisons are terrible places and it would be awful to be imprisoned in one. On the other hand, MegaUpload did seem like it was brazenly profiting off of other people's intellectual property. Communications referenced in the original indictment made it seem like the Mega employees agreed that their business was based on copyright infringement. That would also match my common sense intuitions. Hopefully the NZ courts will reach a wise conclusion.
    - thomastjeffery 8y ago
      > Hopefully the NZ courts will reach a wise conclusion. The only conclusion up to NZ courts is about extradition; which has already been made. It's up to US courts now.
      - fiter 8y ago
        Kim still has another appeal in New Zealand at their supreme court.
    - thomastjeffery 8y ago
      > MegaUpload did seem like it was brazenly profiting off of other people's intellectual property. As much as US propaganda would like us to see it as a lame technicality, there is a very important distinction here: Megaupload was not directly profiting from copyright infringement, they were profiting by being a place for copyright infringement. The reason they were so successful is that there wasn't a competing service in that niche other than BitTorrent. Megaupload just hosted files. They are seen as some evil copyright-infringing business simply because they didn't actively filter those files. They considered the content of their users' data to be none of their business. I think it's ludicrous to prosecute them for such reasonable behavior.
      - ALittleLight 8y ago
        I don't really see this as US propaganda. I think it's likely that MegaUpload was facilitating for profit copyright infringement. If copyright exists for any reason it should be to stop other people from selling your intellectual property for a profit. MegaUpload did not just host files but they also made it easy to share access to those files and paid people who hosted files that were shared a lot. MegaUpload knew about content that was infringing on copyright and did nothing about it (per the indictment). When MegaUpload was given take down notices they did not remove offending content but instead deactivated links to the content. If I torrented a movie, uploaded it on MegaUpload, then generated a hundred links to share on a hundred forum posts, I could share the movie, make money from Mega for doing so, and avoid take downs by generating new links. Do you believe that intellectual property should be defended by law?
        varenc 8y ago
        The key point for me is that even when MegaUpload was given a DMCA takedown notice, they intentionally made the simplest possible response that barely addressed the issue. If they'd simply removed all the shared links for a file that matched an infringing file's hash, that'd be a huge difference in my mind. Of course, if they did this, they likely would have had far fewer paying customers...
        8y ago
  - berti 8y ago
    I'm no lawyer but it appears to me that "exempted" countries don't need to prove NZ laws would have been broken [1]. The United States is an "exempted" country [2]. [1] 25(3)(b) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26229.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/D... [2] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0370/latest/DLM301516.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0370/l...

I wonder if a time will come when the US will extradite the CEO of a hosting company for failing to filter content to the satisfaction of the proposed EU copyright law.

tedunangst 8y ago

Generally the alleged activity must also be illegal in the country you are being extradited from.

6nf 8y ago
I understand that Kim didn't actually break any NZ laws though?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ALittleLight 8y ago
  The explanation I've heard is that he had servers in the US, he paid people in the US, he made money from customers in the US by breaking the law in the US and therefore the US government position is that he is a criminal in the US and should face penalities here. Whether he did anything illegal in NZ or whether he should be extradited is obviously a question for NZ legal authorities. I've always felt conflicted about his case myself. On the one hand I have natural sympathies for people using software to share information. I also think American prisons are terrible places and it would be awful to be imprisoned in one. On the other hand, MegaUpload did seem like it was brazenly profiting off of other people's intellectual property. Communications referenced in the original indictment made it seem like the Mega employees agreed that their business was based on copyright infringement. That would also match my common sense intuitions. Hopefully the NZ courts will reach a wise conclusion.
  - thomastjeffery 8y ago
    > Hopefully the NZ courts will reach a wise conclusion. The only conclusion up to NZ courts is about extradition; which has already been made. It's up to US courts now.
    - fiter 8y ago
      Kim still has another appeal in New Zealand at their supreme court.
  - thomastjeffery 8y ago
    > MegaUpload did seem like it was brazenly profiting off of other people's intellectual property. As much as US propaganda would like us to see it as a lame technicality, there is a very important distinction here: Megaupload was not directly profiting from copyright infringement, they were profiting by being a place for copyright infringement. The reason they were so successful is that there wasn't a competing service in that niche other than BitTorrent. Megaupload just hosted files. They are seen as some evil copyright-infringing business simply because they didn't actively filter those files. They considered the content of their users' data to be none of their business. I think it's ludicrous to prosecute them for such reasonable behavior.
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      I don't really see this as US propaganda. I think it's likely that MegaUpload was facilitating for profit copyright infringement. If copyright exists for any reason it should be to stop other people from selling your intellectual property for a profit. MegaUpload did not just host files but they also made it easy to share access to those files and paid people who hosted files that were shared a lot. MegaUpload knew about content that was infringing on copyright and did nothing about it (per the indictment). When MegaUpload was given take down notices they did not remove offending content but instead deactivated links to the content. If I torrented a movie, uploaded it on MegaUpload, then generated a hundred links to share on a hundred forum posts, I could share the movie, make money from Mega for doing so, and avoid take downs by generating new links. Do you believe that intellectual property should be defended by law?
      - varenc 8y ago
        The key point for me is that even when MegaUpload was given a DMCA takedown notice, they intentionally made the simplest possible response that barely addressed the issue. If they'd simply removed all the shared links for a file that matched an infringing file's hash, that'd be a huge difference in my mind. Of course, if they did this, they likely would have had far fewer paying customers...
        8y ago
- berti 8y ago
  I'm no lawyer but it appears to me that "exempted" countries don't need to prove NZ laws would have been broken [1]. The United States is an "exempted" country [2]. [1] 25(3)(b) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26229.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/D... [2] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0370/latest/DLM301516.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0370/l...