5 ms·
Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited to the United States, Subject to Judicial Review
- Simulacra 6y agoAnd the saga continues
- ZoomerCretin 6y agoI can’t wait to hear why this is different from China enforcing their new national security law against people who haven’t set foot in their country.
- ALittleLight 6y agoA possible reason is that it went through (or is going through) the sovereign courts of New Zealand. Another reason would be that Kim committed his for profit crimes virtually in the US even if he was physically in New Zealand. That is, he was knowingly selling access to copyrighted content to American consumers, with American employees, from American servers. Also, as I understand it China's law applies broadly to a class of people (i.e Hong Kongers) whereas Kim's case is a specific legal ruling for a specific criminal.
- enkid 6y agoThere's also a lot of treaties about the reciprocity of copyright. Without that, copyright can be pretty useless.
- type0 6y agoWas it registered in US? Even if it was there are so many heads of corporations unpunished today just because you can't sentence a company to prison, they want to make an example out of him. So how corrupt is the system? America World Police strikes again.
- ALittleLight 6y agoI don't really have much sympathy for people whose business model is "I'm going to sell copyrighted movies and TV shows for my own profit without compensating the creators in any way." Surely there are complicated legal questions at issue, which is why this has taken so long - but ultimately I think criminal charges against blatant for profit infringement are just.
- thefounder 6y agoYou re so naive
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 88840-8855 6y agoSimple - China installed this law to punish serious crimes, e.g. the Hong Kong guy who murdered his gf in Taiwan, but could not be extradited to Taiwan and remains unpunished. Dotcom allowed people 10 years ago to download movies in shitty quality from his website and made some cash from that. This is why he must be punished very hard and extradited to the US from no matter where he is on this planet.
- coolgod 6y agoBut what about Julian Assange or Meng Wanzhou, surely they committed grave acts against the American people right?
- AstralStorm 6y agoIllegal acts against American government, maybe, not people. I know a few who commit grave acts against American people and get paid for it with no legal repercussions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- robjan 6y agoYou are thinking about the abandoned Extradition Bill. The National Security Law includes the ability to extradite people but only for promoting succession, spreading certain views and talking about certain things. The guy who murdered his GF in Taiwan can't be extradited to Taiwan under the NSL.
- Benmcdonald__ 6y agoIt's a law against questioning the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. It has nothing to do with extradition
- Benmcdonald__ 6y agoThe law you are confusing this with was a different extradited law where the communist party wanting to extradite Hong Kong residence to mainland China where torture and slavery for political enemies of the Chinese Communist Party are completely uninhibited. And maybe the CCP would send a murderer to their enermy the Republic of China, or that was irrelevant.
- roca 6y agoWe don't have an extradition treaty with China and we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong because we don't trust the CCP, while we still have an extradition treaty with the USA, so that's one difference. Another difference: NZ won't extradite people unless the crime they're accused of is a crime in New Zealand and there's a plausible case against them. So, even if we had a treaty we wouldn't extradite people to China for sedition against the CCP because that's not a crime under NZ law.
- mschuster91 6y ago> So, even if we had a treaty we wouldn't extradite people to China for sedition against the CCP because that's not a crime under NZ law. So it's not a crime to call for a putsch against the NZ government? I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's a matter of framing things.
- roca 6y agohttps://en.wikinews.org/wiki/New_Zealand_repeals_sedition_law https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/New_Zealand_repeals_sedition_la... Of course, even if we did have a sedition law making it illegal to call for a putsch against the NZ government, that wouldn't make it illegal to call for the overthrow of the CCP, so the latter still wouldn't be extraditable.
- m0zg 6y agoAbility to ignore one's own hypocrisy is the main manifestation of power. Rules for thee but not for me.
- bluesign 6y ago“However, any extradition would only take place on copyright grounds since the Supreme Court has ruled that the men are not eligible to be surrendered in respect of money laundering since there is “no matching New Zealand offense.” This part always confuses me, US still can charge him for money laundering after he is In US right?
- philliphaydon 6y agoMy understanding is that "We will extradite him on the grounds of copyright, but you cannot charge him for money laundering." If they were to then charge him for money laundering, then it would mean NZ has 0 trust that any extradition to the US would be honored and future extraditions would be evermore increasingly difficult. But at the end of the day, who knows. It's the US, they do what they want.
- justinclift 6y ago> If they were to then charge him for money laundering, then it would mean NZ has 0 trust that any extradition to the US would be honored and future extraditions would be evermore increasingly difficult. One of the more interesting points with the recent Assange trial, was the evidence presented (by the defence) of the US breaking it's previous commitments to the UK government for treatment of extradited prisoners. (From memory) apparently other high profile extraditions have only been allowed with certain attached conditions. For example "must be supplied with their medical (diabetes or something like that?) medication", which once extradited were completely ignored. It sounded like there were several conditions attached to these previous extraditions, and all the conditions have been outright ignored. So, the trust thing you mention should (in theory) already be on shaky ground.
- gregjw 6y agoRidiculous
- 02020202 6y ago'murica, terrorizing the world since 1776
- supermatt 6y agoWhy was Megaupload not subject to DMCA safe harbour in the same way Youtube, etc, are?
- convery 6y agoBecause they didn't accept/handle DMCA requests?
- Dylan16807 6y agoThey did handle DMCA requests. The main complaint there is that they only deleted the copies listed in the takedown, and left other copies alone.
- pdimitar 6y agoSo let's get real. Which gatekeepers and entrenched players did he rub the wrong way? Honestly, the perseverance in persecuting him is impressive. What did he do?
- jeroenhd 6y agoHe pissed off the copyright and entertainment lobbies. He flaunted the wealth he gained from a website that was commonly used to share pirated content. The MPAA, RIAA and media companies all have friends in high places. Any large player not willing to play ball with the demands from the media industry can count on legal action against them at some point. If Youtube didn't have their content ID system, they would've been raided by the FBI long ago.
- tweetle_beetle 6y agoI think if he had quietly disappeared it would be forgotten about, but he seems to crave the attention the case brings. From the dramatic retelling of "The Raid" on his website, to his bizarre coded messages hinting about Mega being stolen from him, to regularly hinting at reviving the service that the case revolves around, to setting up Mega.nz to his brash music videos and books, he has made himself very hard to ignore.
- vaccinator 6y agoDidn't they already take all of his possessions? Isn't it time to let him be?