6 ms·

Anyone know why this is prioritised? Wasn't this copyright stuff from like 2 decades ago? Just genuinely curious.

Taniwha 2y ago
He fought it all the way and ran out of options, we have a more right leaning government now who want to suck up to the US
- blooalien 2y ago
  [flagged]
- _djo_ 2y ago
  What did the government have to do with this? Sounds like he ran out of appeals through the court system, which is independent of the government of the day.
  - Taniwha 2y ago
    There's a minister who still has to approve/deny it
- halyconWays 2y ago
  >ran out of options He'd have one more option to fight tyranny, if your government didn't disarm the populace. Imagine being yanked out of your home country by a foreign power and their corporate overlords with the prospect of living the rest of your life in third-world prison conditions, for the crime of allegedly reducing their balance sheets from $550B per year to $545B per year.
  - Taniwha 2y ago
    Our populace is pretty heavily armed, hunting is pretty ingrained in the national psyche. No one's arguing for getting rid of hunting rifles. Pistols and semiautomatics, things designed to kill people are illegal and most of us are quite happy with that, especially after we had a foreign terrorist kill 100 innocent people in a mosque.
    - halyconWays 2y ago
      That's nothing, we once had the entire British government attempt to kill us. > things designed to kill people are illegal Your government doesn't have guns?
    - theultdev 2y ago
      terrorist do illegal things, including smuggling in guns. not great to take away firepower from citizens while the terrorists have guns. you end up waiting around for the police, which may or may not be prepared or even arrive on time.
      - Taniwha 2y ago
        The terrorist who shot 100 people in the mosque came to NZ because we used to allow semi-automatics, and his home country didn't, he bought them here, it's why we banned them - to make it harder for terrorists
diggan 2y ago
If the media industry is successful in using DMCA against foreign residents to put them in US jail, it'll be a huge deterrent against any other similar people hosting similar platforms in countries with US extradition treaties.
- tzs 2y ago
  They aren't using the DMCA against him. Where DMCA comes into the picture is that for hosting sites DMCA compliance can be used as a defense against a charge of copyright infringement in the US. The underlying problem for Megaupload is that what they were doing is illegal in over 180 countries (basically any country that is a party to a major international copyright treaty or convention). A good general rule of thumb is that if you want to host something that is illegal in country X hosting it in country Y without an extradition treaty is not sufficient. You should pick a Y where it is not illegal there. Otherwise even if Y does not care enough to go after you, if Y has good trade or other relations with X the may respond positively to encouragement from X to go after you.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
The indictment was a bit under 12 years ago. As the article covers, Dotcom initiated extensive legal proceedings, with one argument going to the (NZ) Supreme Court in 2020, about whether he could legally be extradited. Presumably we’ve reached the end of those proceedings.
elfbargpt 2y ago
He's a popular voice of dissent on Twitter and someone must be cracking down right now. Scott Ritter is another--he had his passport seized recently and his house raided by the FBI a week ago.
- halfjoking 2y ago
  And Tulsi Gabbard recently was placed on a terror watch list. All the Federal agencies have been weaponized. SEC only went after companies like LBRY, Inc because their founders and platform share information they don't like. The real fraudsters on Wallstreet get away with anything.

He fought it all the way and ran out of options, we have a more right leaning government now who want to suck up to the US

blooalien 2y ago
[flagged]
_djo_ 2y ago
What did the government have to do with this? Sounds like he ran out of appeals through the court system, which is independent of the government of the day.
- Taniwha 2y ago
  There's a minister who still has to approve/deny it
halyconWays 2y ago
>ran out of options He'd have one more option to fight tyranny, if your government didn't disarm the populace. Imagine being yanked out of your home country by a foreign power and their corporate overlords with the prospect of living the rest of your life in third-world prison conditions, for the crime of allegedly reducing their balance sheets from $550B per year to $545B per year.
- Taniwha 2y ago
  Our populace is pretty heavily armed, hunting is pretty ingrained in the national psyche. No one's arguing for getting rid of hunting rifles. Pistols and semiautomatics, things designed to kill people are illegal and most of us are quite happy with that, especially after we had a foreign terrorist kill 100 innocent people in a mosque.
  - halyconWays 2y ago
    That's nothing, we once had the entire British government attempt to kill us. > things designed to kill people are illegal Your government doesn't have guns?
  - theultdev 2y ago
    terrorist do illegal things, including smuggling in guns. not great to take away firepower from citizens while the terrorists have guns. you end up waiting around for the police, which may or may not be prepared or even arrive on time.
    - Taniwha 2y ago
      The terrorist who shot 100 people in the mosque came to NZ because we used to allow semi-automatics, and his home country didn't, he bought them here, it's why we banned them - to make it harder for terrorists

diggan 2y ago

If the media industry is successful in using DMCA against foreign residents to put them in US jail, it'll be a huge deterrent against any other similar people hosting similar platforms in countries with US extradition treaties.

tzs 2y ago
They aren't using the DMCA against him. Where DMCA comes into the picture is that for hosting sites DMCA compliance can be used as a defense against a charge of copyright infringement in the US. The underlying problem for Megaupload is that what they were doing is illegal in over 180 countries (basically any country that is a party to a major international copyright treaty or convention). A good general rule of thumb is that if you want to host something that is illegal in country X hosting it in country Y without an extradition treaty is not sufficient. You should pick a Y where it is not illegal there. Otherwise even if Y does not care enough to go after you, if Y has good trade or other relations with X the may respond positively to encouragement from X to go after you.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

The indictment was a bit under 12 years ago. As the article covers, Dotcom initiated extensive legal proceedings, with one argument going to the (NZ) Supreme Court in 2020, about whether he could legally be extradited. Presumably we’ve reached the end of those proceedings.

elfbargpt 2y ago

He's a popular voice of dissent on Twitter and someone must be cracking down right now. Scott Ritter is another--he had his passport seized recently and his house raided by the FBI a week ago.

halfjoking 2y ago
And Tulsi Gabbard recently was placed on a terror watch list. All the Federal agencies have been weaponized. SEC only went after companies like LBRY, Inc because their founders and platform share information they don't like. The real fraudsters on Wallstreet get away with anything.