6 ms·

not really, his website was based on hong kong, this is a fight against america playing world police, which i'm on board with they have no business going after

not really, his website was based on hong kong, this is a fight against america playing world police, which i'm on board with they have no business going after just a single man so fervently, he's a foreign national and the websites weren't based in the US

tim333 2y ago
He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. And unlike say normal use of bittorrent, making a lot of money off it. And being the largest player doing that. I'm not sure about the morals but you can certainly understand financially why they've gone after him.
- localfirst 2y ago
  is US intellectual property a national security issue? I don't understand why they went to such extent pursuing a man for simply running a piracy site meanwhile US is losing influence and trust on geopolitical stage, shouldn't that be the bigger issue edit: im being rate limited so heres my response to comment below: I didn't say anybody was replacing US, merely they are losing credibility and prestige on world stage and this isn't recent and not slowing down. I don't think any country will be able to replace US and its freedom of maritime navigation anytime soon. China is in no position to project as its undergoing internal turmoil. Neither is Russia. BRICS also won't offer much. One potential non-zero chance scenario is the northern artic sea routes opening up due to rising temperatures melting ice bypassing the need to route through singapore and suez canal which would put Russia back on the power map. US is a hyperpower and there is no equal. Maybe a unified Korea with extended northern manchuria territories can fill the vacuum left by China and Russia in the region. I don't really see any other candidates.
  - gameman144 2y ago
    One of the reasons the US is viewed as such a good place to start a business is that the country will go to bat for their (favored) businesses internationally. National security is very far from the only scenario where the government will intervene in geopolitics, for better or worse.
    - localfirst 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Genuinely curious about this opinion from outside my bubble - not trying to start a flame war. If you say the US is losing influence, then who is taking their place in your view? Is China / the EU actually gaining influence?
  - cgh 2y ago
    In addition to copyright infringement, the charges are conspiracy, racketeering and money laundering, and presumably the evidence is strong. He has a long history of criminal activity, including embezzlement, selling personal information and trying to run a fake investment firm out of Hong Kong, after which he fled to New Zealand.
- csallen 2y ago
  Minor nitpick, but he was not stealing, he was infringing copyrights. To "steal" is to take another's rivalrous property without permission, such that you now possess it, but they no longer have it. To "infringe a copyright" is to make and distribute a copy of another person's work without their permission. Both illegal, but very different things. What targets of copyright infringement are losing is not their property, but the potential extra profit they could have made if they'd retained their monopoly on the ability to copy and distribute their work. Stealing is illegal because it deprives people of their property. Copyright infringement is illegal because (theoretically) it leads to a world where people are less incentivized to create things because they won't be able to profit as much.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    This. The phrase "intellectual property" is an attempt to confuse a censorship strategy that's a few hundred years old with an entirely separate tradition that's been with us for millennia. They're very different, whatever words you use for them.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      Reminds of a recent discussion seen here about 'identity theft'. Another blame-shifting concept ...
      - adamomada 2y ago
        And then you have the people who say that language changes based on usage. Get enough people calling it property, theft, stealing, irregardless, etc. and then you can change the dictionary.
        __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Which is why it's necessary to point out the mistake. If we don't act now, it'll eventually cease to be a mistake.
  - 2y ago
- xdennis 2y ago
  > He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. But they have no jurisdiction as he was not doing that IN the US. When the Pirate Bay guys were persecuted, the US got Sweden to convict them. They weren't extradited to the US.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Well they've been arguing over that in various court for over ten years. They didn't just charge him with copyright infringement which itself would probably not be extraditable: >..charged in 2012 with engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two counts of criminal copyright infringement. Often with US law enforcement where there's a will there's a way even if it doesn't strictly stick to normal legal practices. See also Assange, and if you read Howard Marks book Mr Nice there's another example of where they got him in an unconventional way. Plus of course a variety of drone assassinations.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    But he was, as many many others have pointed out, hosting files on US based servers
  - WheatMillington 2y ago
    He has US victims though. Fraudsters aren't absolved of responsibility in the USA just because they operate outside the border, and the same can be true of other crimes.
sandworm101 2y ago
>> this is a fight against america playing world police That is how Dotcom wants it characterized. Everyone else sees a fly-by-night website run by an eccentric millionaire making money by playing fast and loose with the law. It is one thing to be an outlaw subverting oppression by distributing free bread to poor people. It is another to be a bootlegger selling vodka under the table and then throwing huge invite-only parties with the profits.
- epolanski 2y ago
  I don't think your point stands. How would US citizens would feel if another country, say China, wanted to extradite a US citizen because he allegedly violated Chinese copyright law? Dotcom is absolutely right in saying that US is playing world police.
  - tommi 2y ago
    It can be that while US is playing world police, characterising Dotcom's MegaUpload and Mega as a fight against it not a fitting description of them. International crime can be a tough problem to solve. Who gets to decide what is a crime, how it should be judged and punished?
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    > How would US citizens would feel if another country, say China, wanted to extradite a US citizen Probably how Swedish citizens felt when China 'extradited' Gui Minhai. At least in US you have due process? See also https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/230000-policing-expands https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/230000-policing-expan.... > US is playing world police NZ and US have a bunch of shared laws, trade and extradition agreements and stuff. It's not like US dropped in and snatched Dotcom without any NZ cooperation. Not world police, just boring international justice.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - epolanski 2y ago
z_ 2y ago
Mega stored files in the US, Carpathia and Cogent were the providers specifically. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case
- jonathanstrange 2y ago
  The Kim Dotcom case is the primary reason why I decided a long time ago to never host any content or website on US servers, no matter how legal I believe it is and how much we comply with copyright law.
stalfosknight 2y ago
If not the US, then who do you suggest could plausibly lead (I would even say prop up) the free world and the global economy?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sensanaty 2y ago
  Catering to trillion dollar media companies is not exactly my idea of freedom.
  - stalfosknight 2y ago
    Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Does their size make the moral situation any different? Many of these are public companies that anyone can buy shares in. Tons of people have part of their life savings in US stocks - these people all own a slice of the rights to various works of art. Are you saying if they own a large enough amount of it, it's OK to ignore their rights? As an aside, here's a list of public companies [0]. 7-8 of them are "trillion dollar companies", and only one (Apple) has a stake in media (that I know of) and that's a very minor part of their business. The media business is not a very good one to be in. [0] https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/
    - sensanaty 2y ago
      > Are you saying if they own a large enough amount of it, it's OK to ignore their rights? Let's not pretend these companies give the slightest hint of a shit about morality. They'd destroy the world next year if it meant they could earn a penny more of profit this quarter. As long as companies like Disney are pulling moves like this [1], I'm not going to sit here and pretend as if these companies are in the right. The only reason Dotcom (a non-US individual with 0 ties to the US in any way that should matter) is being extradited is because US politicians are pathetically cheap and easy to buy off, and Disney and all the other big media companies have infinite coffers with which to do so, not because of some vague bullshit about morality or property rights. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
kube-system 2y ago
Copyright is protected by international treaty.
- EionRobb 2y ago
  I didn't think NZ was part of that treaty in 2012 when this all went down? https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/parties/remarks/NZ/16 https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/parties/remarks/NZ/... says it wasn't until 6 years later that it joined. But maybe a different treaty?
  - kube-system 2y ago
    There's more than one. New Zealand is, for example, a member of these two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Phonograms_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Phonograms_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
tick_tock_tick 2y ago
New Zealand is for all practical purposes a USA protectorate. If you want to break USA law don't do it in a country that is dependent on the USA.
- LouisSayers 2y ago
  It's really not though. Although NZ has agreements with Aus and the US, you'll find on the ground that kiwis are actually not super fond of the US. We won't let US nuclear ships into our waters, and we actually have quite a good relationship with China. NZ is also quite self sufficient in many ways and so far from other countries that it's fairly sheltered from potential conflict.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    > so far from other countries that it's fairly sheltered from potential conflict I suspect the small size of the economy, the small number of people in it, and lack of strategic importance in military matters are what keep it protected from potential conflict more than it's self sufficiency and distance. In fact, if anything was to create conflict would be someone trying to capture that self-sufficiency to support their own population.
    - LouisSayers 2y ago
      Yes, it's a number of things. Small country, fairly neutral stance, little involvement in international conflict, and huge distance. Follow that up with alliances and there's not much reason to come to NZ, other than for a holiday!
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    Also, no nuclear ships but part of five eyes. I think it's more complicated.
  - stevenjgarner 2y ago
    It really IS though. I am both a NZ and US citizen, and I am well aware that the Bretton Woods Accord is alive and well (although I agree with Peter Zeihan that its days are numbered).
Cody-99 2y ago
Being based in a foreign country doesn't mean you aren't committing a crime. Cyber criminals, drug traffickers, money launders, etc are all still on the hook even though they operate in a different country. Also what he was doing is also a crime in NZ otherwise he wouldn't be extradited.

tim333 2y ago

He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. And unlike say normal use of bittorrent, making a lot of money off it. And being the largest player doing that. I'm not sure about the morals but you can certainly understand financially why they've gone after him.

localfirst 2y ago
is US intellectual property a national security issue? I don't understand why they went to such extent pursuing a man for simply running a piracy site meanwhile US is losing influence and trust on geopolitical stage, shouldn't that be the bigger issue edit: im being rate limited so heres my response to comment below: I didn't say anybody was replacing US, merely they are losing credibility and prestige on world stage and this isn't recent and not slowing down. I don't think any country will be able to replace US and its freedom of maritime navigation anytime soon. China is in no position to project as its undergoing internal turmoil. Neither is Russia. BRICS also won't offer much. One potential non-zero chance scenario is the northern artic sea routes opening up due to rising temperatures melting ice bypassing the need to route through singapore and suez canal which would put Russia back on the power map. US is a hyperpower and there is no equal. Maybe a unified Korea with extended northern manchuria territories can fill the vacuum left by China and Russia in the region. I don't really see any other candidates.
- gameman144 2y ago
  One of the reasons the US is viewed as such a good place to start a business is that the country will go to bat for their (favored) businesses internationally. National security is very far from the only scenario where the government will intervene in geopolitics, for better or worse.
  - localfirst 2y ago
    [flagged]
- FredPret 2y ago
  Genuinely curious about this opinion from outside my bubble - not trying to start a flame war. If you say the US is losing influence, then who is taking their place in your view? Is China / the EU actually gaining influence?
- cgh 2y ago
  In addition to copyright infringement, the charges are conspiracy, racketeering and money laundering, and presumably the evidence is strong. He has a long history of criminal activity, including embezzlement, selling personal information and trying to run a fake investment firm out of Hong Kong, after which he fled to New Zealand.
csallen 2y ago
Minor nitpick, but he was not stealing, he was infringing copyrights. To "steal" is to take another's rivalrous property without permission, such that you now possess it, but they no longer have it. To "infringe a copyright" is to make and distribute a copy of another person's work without their permission. Both illegal, but very different things. What targets of copyright infringement are losing is not their property, but the potential extra profit they could have made if they'd retained their monopoly on the ability to copy and distribute their work. Stealing is illegal because it deprives people of their property. Copyright infringement is illegal because (theoretically) it leads to a world where people are less incentivized to create things because they won't be able to profit as much.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  This. The phrase "intellectual property" is an attempt to confuse a censorship strategy that's a few hundred years old with an entirely separate tradition that's been with us for millennia. They're very different, whatever words you use for them.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    Reminds of a recent discussion seen here about 'identity theft'. Another blame-shifting concept ...
    - adamomada 2y ago
      And then you have the people who say that language changes based on usage. Get enough people calling it property, theft, stealing, irregardless, etc. and then you can change the dictionary.
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Which is why it's necessary to point out the mistake. If we don't act now, it'll eventually cease to be a mistake.
- 2y ago
xdennis 2y ago
> He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. But they have no jurisdiction as he was not doing that IN the US. When the Pirate Bay guys were persecuted, the US got Sweden to convict them. They weren't extradited to the US.
- tim333 2y ago
  Well they've been arguing over that in various court for over ten years. They didn't just charge him with copyright infringement which itself would probably not be extraditable: >..charged in 2012 with engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two counts of criminal copyright infringement. Often with US law enforcement where there's a will there's a way even if it doesn't strictly stick to normal legal practices. See also Assange, and if you read Howard Marks book Mr Nice there's another example of where they got him in an unconventional way. Plus of course a variety of drone assassinations.
- TylerE 2y ago
  But he was, as many many others have pointed out, hosting files on US based servers
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  He has US victims though. Fraudsters aren't absolved of responsibility in the USA just because they operate outside the border, and the same can be true of other crimes.

sandworm101 2y ago

>> this is a fight against america playing world police That is how Dotcom wants it characterized. Everyone else sees a fly-by-night website run by an eccentric millionaire making money by playing fast and loose with the law. It is one thing to be an outlaw subverting oppression by distributing free bread to poor people. It is another to be a bootlegger selling vodka under the table and then throwing huge invite-only parties with the profits.

epolanski 2y ago
I don't think your point stands. How would US citizens would feel if another country, say China, wanted to extradite a US citizen because he allegedly violated Chinese copyright law? Dotcom is absolutely right in saying that US is playing world police.
- tommi 2y ago
  It can be that while US is playing world police, characterising Dotcom's MegaUpload and Mega as a fight against it not a fitting description of them. International crime can be a tough problem to solve. Who gets to decide what is a crime, how it should be judged and punished?
- throwaway290 2y ago
  > How would US citizens would feel if another country, say China, wanted to extradite a US citizen Probably how Swedish citizens felt when China 'extradited' Gui Minhai. At least in US you have due process? See also https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/230000-policing-expands https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/230000-policing-expan.... > US is playing world police NZ and US have a bunch of shared laws, trade and extradition agreements and stuff. It's not like US dropped in and snatched Dotcom without any NZ cooperation. Not world police, just boring international justice.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - epolanski 2y ago

z_ 2y ago

Mega stored files in the US, Carpathia and Cogent were the providers specifically. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case

jonathanstrange 2y ago
The Kim Dotcom case is the primary reason why I decided a long time ago to never host any content or website on US servers, no matter how legal I believe it is and how much we comply with copyright law.

stalfosknight 2y ago

If not the US, then who do you suggest could plausibly lead (I would even say prop up) the free world and the global economy?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sensanaty 2y ago
Catering to trillion dollar media companies is not exactly my idea of freedom.
- stalfosknight 2y ago
  Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.
- FredPret 2y ago
  Does their size make the moral situation any different? Many of these are public companies that anyone can buy shares in. Tons of people have part of their life savings in US stocks - these people all own a slice of the rights to various works of art. Are you saying if they own a large enough amount of it, it's OK to ignore their rights? As an aside, here's a list of public companies [0]. 7-8 of them are "trillion dollar companies", and only one (Apple) has a stake in media (that I know of) and that's a very minor part of their business. The media business is not a very good one to be in. [0] https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/
  - sensanaty 2y ago
    > Are you saying if they own a large enough amount of it, it's OK to ignore their rights? Let's not pretend these companies give the slightest hint of a shit about morality. They'd destroy the world next year if it meant they could earn a penny more of profit this quarter. As long as companies like Disney are pulling moves like this [1], I'm not going to sit here and pretend as if these companies are in the right. The only reason Dotcom (a non-US individual with 0 ties to the US in any way that should matter) is being extradited is because US politicians are pathetically cheap and easy to buy off, and Disney and all the other big media companies have infinite coffers with which to do so, not because of some vague bullshit about morality or property rights. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

kube-system 2y ago

EionRobb 2y ago
I didn't think NZ was part of that treaty in 2012 when this all went down? https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/parties/remarks/NZ/16 https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/parties/remarks/NZ/... says it wasn't until 6 years later that it joined. But maybe a different treaty?
- kube-system 2y ago
  There's more than one. New Zealand is, for example, a member of these two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Phonograms_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Phonograms_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement

tick_tock_tick 2y ago

New Zealand is for all practical purposes a USA protectorate. If you want to break USA law don't do it in a country that is dependent on the USA.

LouisSayers 2y ago
It's really not though. Although NZ has agreements with Aus and the US, you'll find on the ground that kiwis are actually not super fond of the US. We won't let US nuclear ships into our waters, and we actually have quite a good relationship with China. NZ is also quite self sufficient in many ways and so far from other countries that it's fairly sheltered from potential conflict.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  > so far from other countries that it's fairly sheltered from potential conflict I suspect the small size of the economy, the small number of people in it, and lack of strategic importance in military matters are what keep it protected from potential conflict more than it's self sufficiency and distance. In fact, if anything was to create conflict would be someone trying to capture that self-sufficiency to support their own population.
  - LouisSayers 2y ago
    Yes, it's a number of things. Small country, fairly neutral stance, little involvement in international conflict, and huge distance. Follow that up with alliances and there's not much reason to come to NZ, other than for a holiday!
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Also, no nuclear ships but part of five eyes. I think it's more complicated.
- stevenjgarner 2y ago
  It really IS though. I am both a NZ and US citizen, and I am well aware that the Bretton Woods Accord is alive and well (although I agree with Peter Zeihan that its days are numbered).

Cody-99 2y ago

Being based in a foreign country doesn't mean you aren't committing a crime. Cyber criminals, drug traffickers, money launders, etc are all still on the hook even though they operate in a different country. Also what he was doing is also a crime in NZ otherwise he wouldn't be extradited.