Not accurate. Read the indictment at the link on this page.
- Bottom of page 11: thirty-nine infringing copies of copyright motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting... in the Eastern District of Virginia
- Page 18:The Mega Conspiracy leases approximately 25 petabytes of data storage from Carpathia to store content associated with The Mega Site.
- It also looks like they leased servers in the US from Cogent, Leaseweb. They paid Carpathia $13M US to host Mega files in the US.
- They also used a US-based Paypal account to receive funds and pay the different hosts in the US.
- They made "reward" payments to US residents who provided copyrighted material.
Mega was running an illegal business in the US.
If you had committed a crime in Saudi Arabia that is also illegal in the US and the US courts have ruled that the extradition is legal, I don't see what's wrong with being extradited.
It's illegal in the US to make and distribute adult films without the proper permits and paperwork and health checks.
Let's say someone made a website that had Saudi girls, now living in the US, make adult films (without the proper permitting and everything so they were violating a US law as well) and advertised those films in Saudi Arabia. And let's say there are Saudi customers.
To speed things up, maybe they had a CDN server in Saudi Arabia.
When the authorities in Saudi Arabia discover this and charge the film makers, would the US grant extradition?
* The film makers / business operators in this scenario would be 100% American. * The product of their creation and the service itself wouldn't be illegal in the US. What was illegal was some business decisions they made. * Their CDN helped facilitate optimal data transmission but was not required for business operations * The Saudi court in this scenario wishes to charge them for the service itself and the product created
Similarly, * Kim is not an american citizen and his company wasn't American * His business was legal in the country it was incorporated in, although he arguably made some business decisions that were not entirely above board * He had leased equipment in the US to help serve people in that geographic region * The US wishes to jail him for the actual operation of the service
Would the US extradite the US citizen to Saudi Arabia for punishment? If not, why should NZ extradite Kim to the US?
*edit - Somehow didn't see that michaelmrose made this argument too in this exact same thread
This has meant that the US has introduced extra sex crime law so that Americans who travel overseas to take advantages of different age of consent laws can be tried as if they had committed the crime in the US.
The US has many citizens that rightly should stand trial for crimes a whole lot more serious than facilitating copyright violation, and none ever will. Reciprocity in situations like these would be very much appreciated and the US is very very reluctant to let any of its citizens be extradited. It happens, but the frequency is dis-proportional to the point of being comical.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16041824
> A critical test set out in the treaty is that the British request must include "such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested."
> This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK.
Further, New Zealand made their own choice to extradite him. They could have refused, they instead chose to. The alternative might have been an international incident, but they decided to aid the US and turn him over. The US is not so all-powerful that it can compel governments to act against their own best interest, only powerful enough to align interests, by hook or crook.
What world do you live in? The United States often compels governments to act against their own interests. The 1973 US backed coup leading to the death of 11,000 civilians. The Iranian-Contras. The School of the Americas, which literally trained terrorists in South America, Iraq!
Thirty years from now, declassified information will show the US caused the rebellion in Libya and that the US directly funded ISIS.
Granted New Zealand is a Commonwealth State and it'd be much more difficult to go to war with a developed English speaking nation, but they are still under the thumb of the US/UK empire. They ruled the spying on Kim Dotcom was illegal, then changed the laws to make it retroactively legal...and also allow the GCHB to spy on anyone they want.
if you want to think the US industry most interested in the copyright law there moving all that money at the right time is just a coincidence, suit yourself.
I suspect that it's also not unusual for Hollywood to sweeten the pot when they want to film somewhere with donations of various types.
The connection between the case and those films is extremely tenuous.
same with China. i bet right now our edge servers are pumping out lots of state censored topics that are also possible treason death sentences.
Note, we are charging people for crimes committed in other countries so the president is independent of crime type.
If twenty country's all make blasphemy illegal, then a single speech in a single country would be breaking the law in each of them.
As to jaywalking, that might not be the root cause. Selective enforcement means people often get charge for reasons other than the direct action.