6 ms·

I 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 ago
A 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 ago
  There's also a lot of treaties about the reciprocity of copyright. Without that, copyright can be pretty useless.
- type0 6y ago
  Was 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      You re so naive
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
88840-8855 6y ago
Simple - 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 ago
  But what about Julian Assange or Meng Wanzhou, surely they committed grave acts against the American people right?
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    Illegal 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 ago
  You 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 ago
  It'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 ago
  The 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 ago
We 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 ago
    https://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 ago
Ability to ignore one's own hypocrisy is the main manifestation of power. Rules for thee but not for me.

ALittleLight 6y ago

A 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 ago
There's also a lot of treaties about the reciprocity of copyright. Without that, copyright can be pretty useless.
type0 6y ago
Was 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    You re so naive
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

88840-8855 6y ago

Simple - 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 ago
But what about Julian Assange or Meng Wanzhou, surely they committed grave acts against the American people right?
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Illegal 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 ago
You 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 ago
It'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 ago
The 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 ago

We 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 ago
  https://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 ago

Ability to ignore one's own hypocrisy is the main manifestation of power. Rules for thee but not for me.