New Zealand Court Rules Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited to U.S | Hacker News Reader

New Zealand Court Rules Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited to U.S

bbc.com

150 pointsrmason102 comments

I don't understand how civilized countries can even consider extraditing anyone to the US in light of the known deficiencies of the US justice and prison system. I don't know about NZ, but for example in Germany the maximum sentence for intentional, commercial copyright infringement is 5 years, whereas in the US it seems to be a life-long confinement in some federal maximum security prison where apparently inmates are sometimes even raped - or so, I've heard, quite shocking if that's true. Moreover, this guy has never set a foot inside the US, and the US do often not extradite people for much more serious crimes.

On top of that, many federal US prisons violate basic human rights, as even some US experts occasionally admit. For example, Marion prison in Colorado was on a permanent lockdown for 23 years, because two prison guards were killed.[1] That means that all inmates were in strict solitary confinement for 23 years, no matter whether they had anything to do with these murders or not.

NZ should offer the US to sue Doctcom in New Zealand or wherever his company resided in. He can then spend a few years in prison, if he's really guilty, and justice is served.

[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/10/23/marion_prison_lo...

I agree that the US prison system has many human rights issues, but Kim's extradition was approved due to the fraud and racketeering charges, not due to the copyright infringement accusations.

No idea how it works if he's extradited and the US tries to prosecute him for the copyright infringement cases though.

The fraud and racketeering charges are a sham, manufactured to work around the non-extraditable copyright infringement charges.

"He [NZ Judge David Harvey] also confirmed that the charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts but dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case which links the actual legal documents

It's worth pointing out that such charges can stem from a pretty wide variety of actions. Look at Aaron Schwartz - he had access to JSTOR and tried to download all the files there. So they block his IP, and he spoofed his ID and tried again. They charged him with wire fraud for this.

Money talks, thats why.

"NZ should offer the US to sue Doctcom in New Zealand or wherever his company resided in."

The US already seized all his assets, and even denied him funds to defend himself, claiming he was a fugitive from justice (even though he hadn't gone anywhere). They also suggested that if funds were used to pay legal expenses, then those reimbursed (even US legal experts) could be considered part of the "criminal conspiracy". Moreover, they seized all the servers the business used to operate their business, not just infringing content, and then refused to maintain those servers, even for the purpose of preserving evidence Dotcom and co could use to defend themselves in the US. They don't want to sue him, because they already have everything. They want him, in a US prison, probably for the rest of his life.

If the US government doesn't win this however, wouldn't they have to return most of his frozen assets?

I imagine Dotcom will actually sue for damages if he wins.

He got extradited on bogus and far-fetched premises, I don't think he's going to win. The US wouldn't pull all these strings to get him extradited just so he could have a fair trial.

After all they've done, you still think they can lose?

Given he didn't have the resources to properly defend himself because they intentionally froze his assets (which in itself, is an unacceptable practice I think), I don't think so.

Maybe a group of 2-3 judges in an appellate court will decide that protecting democracy is more important than "whoring out" (excuse my language) to US interests. It's a slippery slope, and all you need is one precedent.

I don't like the guy at all, but this is just unacceptable in every way. Pathetic performance by the US really, if you can't even take on someone in a correct and ethical way, on equal footing.

> claiming he was a fugitive from justice (even though he hadn't gone anywhere)

IIRC, he was a "fugitive from justice" because he refused to fly to the States to defend himself in court actions there.

Which is a pretty weird definition of "fugitive", but it apparently meets the legal criteria.

> they seized all the servers the business used to operate their business, not just infringing content, and then refused to maintain those servers

I had a friend who had a lot of his thesis research backed up to Megaupload. He ended up losing all of it.

Sure there was a lot of copyrighted material, but there was some legitimate content owned by US customers that's now gone.

>I had a friend who had a lot of his thesis research backed up to Megaupload. He ended up losing all of it.

First, trusting a site that existed primarily to facilitate illegal content exchange to hold your critical data seems really naive. Second, if he lost his data because Megaupload went down, that's not a backup. That's the only copy. This isn't just naive anymore.

> On top of that, many federal US prisons violate basic human rights, as even some US experts occasionally admit.

This could be an interesting strategy to force the US to abide by international human rights treaties. You may not be able to take the U.S. to court over human rights violations, but the judiciary in other countries could start refusing to extradite people to the U.S., thus getting the U.S. government to take the issue more seriously. Of course, this would require that the judges in other countries kind of all agree to do this.

The UK already refuses to extradite for criminal proceedings where the death penalty is a possibility. It must specifically be denied as an option for sentence prior to extradition being arranged.

Having said that, what I've heard about the federal prison system makes me think that a coupe of injections and a permanent nap might actually be more humane. /s

As an American, it's disheartening to see other advanced democracies succumbing to the same type of cancers that ruined my country. You either have the rule of law, or you don't.

These farcical legal contortions to allow extradition are an embarrassment to New Zealand. Sadly, though, my American experience suggests that it's something most people will just slowly get used to. Eventually, the idea that the rule of law applies even in cases where powerful corporate lobbies are on one side, and there are none on the other side, starts to seem quaint.

Although I confess I don't fully understand why American corporate interests can throw around such weight in New Zealand -- in this judgement, or in the original paramilitary raid on Dotcom's home, either.

What's the hidden leverage?

Also worth noting how arbitrary the rule of law has become in the U.S. There are a lot of little edge cases that are technically illegal but millions of people do them and they are generally ignored. However, if the government decides to go after you they'll examine every single tiny thing you've done to see if they can find something they can trump up charges for.

The charges are often pretty shaky, by they threaten you with decades of prison time if you don't plead guilty. Most people agree because they're rather the certainty of a few years of probation or a year of house arrest than the possibility 20 years in prison.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

The US is NZ's third-largest trade partner. As of 2012, the US had $44 billion invested in NZ, which is about 30% of the NZ GDP between 2010-2015.

NZ is also the home of Wetta Digital (you'd be surprised how many major Hollywood films are animated in Wellington on the Wetta sound stages. They're not just the LoTR company), tons of mobile game companies (including PikPok, who Adult Swim contracts all their games through) and Rocket Labs (Auckland Rocket startup).

The big one there is Wetta though. That's one reason the MPAA carries so much weight there. (Wetta is a shit shop btw. I wouldn't suggest taking their contracts. They work people 80+ hours a week during a production cycle. Unless you really love your work, it's a terrible environment).

NZ has no chance of opposing US will unless it wants to go completely in opposition and cut off ties. The US is a giant bully, NZ is a tiny isolated island state. The US managed to get Switzerland to give up banking secrecy, there's no chance for NZ.

> Although I confess I don't fully understand why American corporate interests can throw around such weight in New Zealand -- in this judgement, or in the original paramilitary raid on Dotcom's home, either.

> What's the hidden leverage?

Joe Biden is good friends with Chris Dodd[1] who is (was?) the president of the MPAA[2]. Kim Dotcom had this to say previously[3]:

"Best friend of MPAA's Chris Dodd > Joe Biden. Former lawyer of Joe Biden > US Attorney Neil MacBride. Connect the Dodds"

So it seems that a former Senator turned lobbyist used his connection to the former US vice president to pull strings and convince the NZ government that Dotcom deserved a Pablo Escobar style raid on his home.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-is-a-big-fan-of-chris-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd

[3] https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/280810245209587712

Sorry, I'm not up to speed on copyright infringement penalties in the US. Do you have examples of people who have been given life imprisonment for criminal copyright infringement? As I read it, the Wikipedia page says max five years for a first offense and max ten years for a second or subsequent offense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_...

Not the example you requested, but the threat of it, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosec...

> federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines.[13][101][102] During plea negotiations with Swartz's attorneys, the prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison, if Swartz would plead guilty to 13 federal crimes.

You want to read some of Popehat's articles on sentencing guidelines.

Here's one that walks through the process:

https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-s...

Here's another, more hyperbolic one, showing how a claimed "facing 67 years" turns out to be more like "facing 24 months, and probably less than that":

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

But the short version is that describing a criminal case as "facing up to 50 years" is like describing a lottery ticket as "worth up to 50 million dollars", and you should probably believe both statements about equally until the sentencing happens (for the criminal case) or the winning numbers are drawn (for the lottery ticket).

It can be 67 years at the whim of the DA. The maximum punishment is very real and they're just itching to use it.

If it was an unbiased roll of the dice that would be one thing, and the average and the distribution would be meaningful. But when it's arbitrary it doesn't matter what anyone else got, only what you'll get. And if you have any complaints about your treatment, etc, you're immediately in the full-penalty group.

It can be 67 years at the whim of the DA.

Everything I've read says the judge is the one who applies the sentencing guidelines. Prosecuting attorneys don't sentence people, as far as I'm aware.

The DA is the one who offers you a plea bargain, or not, and decides how many counts they charge you with. And recommends charges.

But yeah, after that it's all the judge.

So what happens when someone who's actually informed about sentencing guidelines tells a DA they don't believe the whole "if you don't plead you're facing ten million years in prison" thing?

You're the one who thinks you're informed, and that a judge would overrule the DA if they got out of hand, so I suggest you go find out.

I'm pretty much in the camp that the DA would fuck you up and the police and judge would all be in on it. Try telling a cop what the law is, especially if you're right...

The difference is the price of that lottery ticket isn't $2, it's your remaining life.

As you would expect most don't take that gamble.

Really, I was just wondering if there were any examples of Americans being sentenced to decades in prison for copyright infringement. It sounds like the answer is no (?).

Also, I assume the multiple counts issue also applies to Germany and other countries, so the US penalties aren't necessarily that much worse. (Well, 10 years is much worse than 5 years, but it isn't decades worse.)

The German legal system does not simply do multiples. Assuming everything is judged together at a trial the process is roughly as follows: First it is checked whether everything was done in a single criminal act (which is defined pretty broadly)[1]. In that case, it is just one crime with one maximum. If not, the sentence is usually much less than the sum of single sentences would be (rule of thumb is "offense with maximal punishment + 1/2 sum of the rest" but can be even less). Everything is capped at 15 years unless there was a crime demanding lifelong imprisonment.

If there are seperate trials (even for totally seperate crimes), the sentences are also combined as per above at the later trial (unless the former sentence was already executed).

As far as I know this is not unusual worldwide. Certainly other European countries use a similar system.

[1]: Wikipedia tells me that the US system doesn't ask that question at all. I know absolutely nothing about copyright cases in particular but e.g. starting a filesharing client that distributes many files to many people is still a single criminal act in Germany (civil law is different of course).

Right, and it's the multiple "counts" that get you.

Should have left the country and moved to Germany while he had the chance. Afaik Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens.

Question to the legal experts here: Assuming he manages to board a German ship and to enter international waters (while officially not allowed to leave NZ). Would this be sufficient, or would international treaties allow NZ or the US to intercept that ship?

New Zealand law has a principle known as natural justice. It's a term that refers to the right to a trial that is fair when considered in totality, and the right to have a judge that is not biased. It was argued by Dotcom's team and the legal team of his coaccused that the District court judge had hurried the trial so much that there was no opportunity to even present a case. He wasn't allowed to present expert testimony on the commonplace practice of using deduplication in filesharing technology, or expert testimony on US law, etc. The question came up in the trial that if natural justice had been so badly denied, then it wasn't clear how the problem could be rectified. Evidence came to light during the trial before this judge that largely discredited the Crown case, but wasn't properly before the judge (wasn't allowed to be considered), further compounding the problem the case presented. The Crown Prosecution Service of course argued that Dotcom and co would have the opportunity to present such evidence in the US after being extradited.

Your points reveal the nature of NZ how I found it after living there. It is a nation of well-mannered, and sometimes incredibly friend people, yet with far-more-corrupt-than-you-would-imagine institutions. They have the highest per-capita War on Drugs in the world that includes selectively-enforced laws and no progress on the harmful impact to society of drug abuse. Yet with all that money spent on law enforcement, one at a hostel who was mugged could not even get police to investigate the crime.

NZ ranked as the #1 least corrupt place in the world is some major bullshit. They have government-sanctioned monopolies in everything from office property to ski resorts. Telecom industry is even more of a joke than Australia or US.

Nowhere else in the Western world have I seen such a disgusting display of sex workers as I did in NZ. Of people mugged and beaten up for no reason. Of overt racism. However, there's also some of the nicest people in the world there, and it is a beautiful country.

Anyways, Kim Dotcom's case just adds to the list of bullshit to what should otherwise be a utopia.

> NZ ranked as the #1 least corrupt place in the world is some major bullshit.

Or that the ratings are so corrupted to portray this place as a bastion of corruptlessness.

>They have government-sanctioned monopolies in everything from office property to ski resorts. Telecom industry is even more of a joke than Australia or US.

TIL resisting neoliberal market ideology = corruption.

Why is this hard to understand? A tiny nation cannot rely on private capital to establish massive projects like national telecom or even office buildings. So people band together through government to do it. Sorry that government ownership of anything but a global war machine seems to offend you.

(Not being familiar with New Zealand myself) my impression was that they were referring to govt accepting or accommodating private monopolies.

We apparently just disagree about what I am assuming to be a right: People to have just and fair competition in a law-abiding marketplace. In a marketplace, people get to choose with their dollars which goods and services they want the most. In socialist or an authoritarian regimes, a government decides for you what you need, who gets it, who gets the profits, but they make you pay for it.

Whether they use their citizens wealth to produce Wars on Drugs, ski resorts or office buildings is up to them. While I'd rather they produce ski resorts or office buildings, the idea that a government needs to intervene in order to develop any of those is ridiculous.

>Sorry that government ownership of anything but a global war machine seems to offend you.

That is not fair, and it's insulting. Nowhere did I say I support war.

I don't even follow what you're talking about. There are three telecom networks in NZ, the government owned one was privatized long ago and is publicly listed. There are private ski resort companies. In a lot of ways, Australia and NZ have gone far deeper into the neoliberal privatization rabbit hole than the US. NY airports run by the Port Authority isn't corruption? NY has government run ski resorts too.

And either way, socialism != corruption. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's corruption.

You really don't think Chorus needs any competition!?

> Nowhere else in the Western world have I seen such a disgusting display of sex workers as I did in NZ.

Prostitution is legal in New Zealand since 2003. That legalization is generally considered to be progressive and to have had a positive outcome on the health and safety of workers in the sex trade.

I'm a New Zealander and you are sbsolutely correct, unfortunately. By first world standards there is a lot of street violence here and police have zero interest it. If you deliver the case to them gift-wrapped - names, witness statements - they still have zero chance of being given so much as a slap on the wrist if it's their first offense.

If you ride a bicycle without a helmet though they will throw the book at you.

The low corruption rating thing has always puzzled me as well. I suppose it's that behaviour that's usually considered a result of corruption is in-fact documented, transparent, follows the law, or is a matter of policy. Which doesn't change how harmful it is.

I often see Americans here with unrealistic views of this place. Median house prices are 6 times the average household income - in Auckland it's 10 times - and things like double-glazing or insulation are considered luxuries. If you have a burning need to ski and visit a beach in the same day and aren't willing to learn a language other than English then I guess NZ is a good destination for a first world immigrant. But if not, it's totally not worth it. Almost every New Zealander with marketable skills gets out so they can earn more and spend less somewhere else.

It's sad because NZ was originally on the track to be a socialistic paradise. At one time University was very low cost; almost free. Today student loans never gain interest .. until you leave the country for more than six months (NZ is trying to prevent losing talent with people moving to Australia).

AirNZ was once owned by the government. Many of the power companies were as well, until the John Key asset sales. Even before asset sales, NZ paid some of the highest rates in the world for electricity. ($200/month single occupancy power bills were not uncommon).

Wellington was the only city I lived in where someone broke into my house. Break-ins around x-mas are pretty common - lot of theft and people buying presents off TradeMe.

It's still an amazing country, great affordable health care and wonderful people. Software patents are banned in NZ, which is another huge plus. However a lot of the corruption is getting worse and the GCSB is allowed to spy on all its citizens now.

>GCSB is allowed to spy on all its citizens now.

Here's a story of a bungled spy operation on a pro-democracy activist who is a citizen of NZ that was targeted and betrayed by his own country.(1) It is really a disgusting use of taxpayer dollars and invasion of privacy. Nothing good comes out of that. It makes you wonder how many cases out there that there are which never make it to the media. Or what happens which can never be proven.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/14/nsa-gcsb-prism-surveilla...

> It's sad because NZ was originally on the track to be a socialistic paradise.

I have the complete opposite opinion. Part of NZs problem is it has too much socialism. Income taxes and sales taxes are sky high. Which is part of the reason why property is so overpriced - why start a business, generate wealth and get taxed to death when you can just get on the "Property Ladder" and make it worse for people who aren't on it yet?

I find your morality interesting. You find Government ownership in private industry offensive, sex workers offensive, and appear to be pro drug legalisation. In my experience this is an unusual combination. Neither classically conservative or liberal. (Not trying to pass judgement, just expressing surprise)

I live in NZ, and I know there are some drawbacks to the way things are done here but don't think 'government-sanctioned monopolies' are a sign of corruption. We are a small Island nation there are somethings that simply don't have sufficient markets to compete in. For example our Rail.

I'm guessing your complaint has more to do with a personal and unpleasant experience in a ski resort here?

I find the telecom industry here to be fine. I have unlimited 100meg(up and down) fibre to my home and office (with gigabit due soon). My cellphone charges are reasonable. I don't know what more I'd want?

I'd be interested in where you are sourcing the information on "highest per-capita War on Drugs". EDIT http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/89642386/they-were-wil... <- this is more typical of our drug policy.

And your report of the police not investigating a crime, suggests to me there is more to the story. Many petty crimes get little police attention and go unsolved but I'd be shocked if one couldn't even be reported.

"Overt racism" is bad at the moment, there is a growing anti Asian sentiment, that needs to stop. We also have some issues at the moment with "Freedom campers", basically tourists that live in camper vans without showers and toilets. We simply don't have the facilities to handle them at present. So there are reports of human waste clogging car parks. Not ideal and this needs to be solved. Unfortunately this has lead some in small towns to be very hostile towards foreigners.

I don't think our mugging rate is very high compared to most countries around the world.

I just want to comment on the telecoms thing, a few years ago I would have totally agreed with you but recently things have picked up here. (All prices in NZD)

I left in NZ in 2011 where I had ADSL2 with a 60GB cap at about $100 a month. Came back in 2013 where the best I could get was ADSL2 capped at 90GB for $100 a month. VDSL was around and reasonably priced but wasn't widely available.

Within a year my plan moved to uncapped which also became the standard for everyone, and within a year of that I had uncapped Gigabit fibre for under $90 a month. And fibre is rolling out around the country at very reasonable prices.

Mobiles slowly coming down getting closer to the cheap UK pricing, $30 a month can get you unlimited calling/texting and 3GB or so. Data is still the real killer here where I was on a £16 a month unlimited 3g plan in the UK.

Can anyone explain the concept where a foreign person can commit an act on foreign soil and be considered that the U.S. has jurisdiction to charge them with a crime? How is that possible?

Because, Team America World Police, that's how.

http://www.kktg.net/Notes/hacking-jurisdiction/

Because NZ agreed to extradition terms with the US. If they hadn't done that, then the US could try him in absentia but good luck enforcing it.

Planning a terrorist act that will happen in the US?

That does not create a jurisdiction to charge someone. Just a justification (in the eyes of US citizens) to kill them straight away.

>Just a justification (in the eyes of US citizens) to kill them straight away.

You mean the eyes of the US government. The citizens aren't out there killing foreign nationals. Saying US citizens are responsible for extra-judicial killings is like saying Muslims are responsible for terrorist attacks. It's wrong and it's offensive.

It may still be wrong and offensive, but at least in the case of the government it is a self policing body that in-principle answers to the US citizenry. There is no comparable (non-supernatural) relationship between all Muslims.

It's far from that simple. You should realize that the US Government does not answer directly to its citizens. This is not a corruption of the design, this is part of the design itself. The US is not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy. We have very little control over the daily actions of our politicians, only the broad ideas they stand for.

I'm willing to bet that no one voted for President Obama specifically because he wanted to use drones to kill suspected terrorists without attempting to arrest them first. He came up with that idea on his own. Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive.

I didn't say that it was simple, just that there is a relationship there (however attenuated) that's lacking in the other case.

> Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive.

How's that defense working for an ISIS funder?

"Oh, I didn't send the money for bombs, I sent it for their work with children..."

I mean what I say. Majority of US citizens support drone attacks (in the polls) despite the risks. And the US is democracy, so...

He made the mistake of hosting copyright-infringing files on US-based servers. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/23/us_department_of_jus...

> Files that demanded higher throughput, which meant that more users were accessing those files simultaneously, were stored on faster servers located in Washington, D.C. The preliminary analysis of the databases shows that the vast majority of files on these computers are infringing copies of copyrighted works.

That's some major bullshit in law. If one hosts a server in Russia that someone uploads copyrighted content to, should they be extradited to Russia to be criminally charged? What the fuck.

Money talks. That's what's going on here.

The US government even goes after foreigners committing crimes outside US borders for simply using US dollars.

That's how they were "able" to go after the corrupt FIFA officials.

"The country’s law enforcers claim the right to go after anyone using dollars, its banking system or its territory to plan or conduct an illegal act."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/ec...

Whatever their justification, I wouldn't call it law at this point.

That concept is actually not that unusual or nonsensical - imagine if we had the opposite: As long as you and your servers are outside the US, you can not be charged under US criminal law. This would basically mean that the US would need to rely exclusively on the goodwill of foreign prosecutors to shut down things like e.g. securities fraud exclusively targetting US citizens or hackers attacking US companies etc. Obviously, in many cases foreign prosecutors would not care too much. Does this seem like justice?

I'm going to say yes. If they and their business are completely outside of the US, then unless they are breaking a treaty (ex: war crimes), I would say that it is justice. To think otherwise would be to place the expectation that every person in the world be held to the expectation that they know and understand the laws of every other country in the world. That to me sounds unreasonable. For example, how many non-US censorship laws do you think are broken by Americans on a daily basis? Do you think it is right and just that all of those Americans be charged with a crime by other countries? And that they be extradited on request?

If a law is universal to the point that you think charging non-citizens residing outside of your country is just, then I would expect that declaration to be recognized via a treaty or an agreement by the United Nations. No matter what you think of Kim Dotcom and others like him, the charges and approach by the US government to me do not seem like justice in any sense of the word.

The difference is intent. Kim was intentionally violating American law to defraud American businesses and help American citizens commit crimes.

While I don't agree with the manner of his prosecution or extradition, let's all agree to the facts of the case. He didn't incidentally break US law, he fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations and the benefit of US citizens.

Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere? Because until I saw your response, intent didn't even cross my mind. Regardless of that, I still don't think intent changes my point of view when it comes to justice. Trying to take intent into account means treading into very very murky waters with regards to thought police and trying to determine what people think. And that is one very slippery slope. I for one would not want countries like China and North Korea claiming that I "intentionally" broke some censorship law in their country and asking for my extradition.

>Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere?

You did not, which is why I brought it up. What you said was that people should not be responsible for breaking laws they were not aware of in countries they don't live in. Which is true and I agree with that, but Kim knew full well what he was doing. Intent is 90% of the law, and Kim knew exactly what he was doing. He fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations for the benefit of US citizens.

>[that's assuming non-citizens] know and understand the laws of every other country in the world

is exactly what you said. There's no assumption needed here. You don't have to assume Kim knew the laws of other countries. He knew. Intent is a very important factor here, which is why I brought it up. It was something missing from your argument.

> As long as you and your servers are outside the US, you can not be charged under US criminal law

Thats exactly what the NSA said about spying. "Your Constitutional rights apply to you only on US soil. One step off US soil and the law doesn't apply anymore."

I am from New Zealand, and I had a friend who was working for Kim Dotcom leading up to the time of the raid. I never got close enough to actually see anything, but just from the stories I heard I was deeply suspicious. It didn't sound like much was done "by the book", people were paid in cash, stuff was hushed up... it all seemed really, really shady.

At the time, Dotcom was loathed by his neighbours in Coatesville for driving sports cars really fast around the area, scaring people on horseback, antagonizing the neighbours, and generally being an asshole. I met a few of them once and they all had the same opinion - they just didn't want this guy around any more.

Since the raid he's been on a PR kick, including releasing an album called "Good Times" with pictures of his face holding a flower all over buses around the country: https://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/story_imgs/BeZ4ZHw...

I don't know nearly enough about the by-the-book legality of what was happening with Megaupload. But to your average Kiwi he's a bit of a disingenuous prick with enough talk of criminal bullshit to make him unpopular. Our small island nation's culture is precious to us.

> Our small island nation's culture is precious to us.

Peter Thiel...

His debate with John Key was spectacular though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZcFQOOwjTE

..and he did organize the broadcast with the Internet/Mana Party, Snowden and Assange.

That CD of his, terrible. So terrible. "oh the good good life," fuck it's stuck in my head now.

Sure he's a huge asshole. The American film industry is worse. The MPAA has a lot of pull in NZ because of all the contracts that go from Hollywood to Wetta. Regardless of what you think of Kim Dotcom personally, the way his assets were seized and this whole process carried out should be of great concern to all Kiwis because of the far reaching legal implications.

Remember, the GCSB bill that allowed spying was just making legal what the government was already doing. The original spying on Kim Dotcom was totally illegal, and no one is in jail for it.

Even the biggest asshole in the world deserves due process.

"He's a bad person and deserves something bad, even if this isn't why he deserves it" is a short-sighted policy that people would never be willing to apply to themselves.

"The ends justify the means" is a pathway to authoritarianism.

First, they came for the hackers.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for. - The Mentor, The Hacker Manifesto (1986)

The internet and the hacker community, much like New Zealand, were built on sharing, which we know to be a net good. Despite character failings and profiteering - the political ramifications of Mega clearly gave Kim an enjoyment that many of us (especially those of us living in or exposed to the developing world, or who made our start in computing through piracy) can and should empathise with, which clearly demonstrates that his motivation exceeded that of profit. I would argue, therefore, that Kim is one of us, and that we owe him our heartfelt - if conditional - support.

While Kim - like many of us - is certainly a fallible and occasionally (quaintly) antagonistic character, if humans are to stand any chance of solving the more pressing issues of the planet what we need is transparency and legitimate cross-border community, not "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric out of the 1950s (via the cold war). Despite the international media saga of Kim vs. USA, Kim fundamentally wins hands down on the big picture (eg. not wielding an army of drone-assassins with a stated 'whole planet, intra-minutes death-dealing' goal, not producing and exporting torture equipment, etc...). The whole MPAA/US argument basically rests on the allegation of lost profits... as if commercial exploitation of the entire planet's population is some kind of global, monocultural, border-free given. Frankly I don't know what's more offensive: the assumption, or the methodology.

I'm more willing to risk imprisonment (or any other negative outcome) personally than I am willing to risk the curtailment of my intellectual freedom and that of those around me who I care for equally as I do for myself. - Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblower

> I would argue, therefore, that Kim is one of us, and that we owe him our heartfelt - if conditional - support.

Kim Dotcom is a career criminal. Having been convicted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Investigations) of dealing in stolen phone cards, insider trading, embezzlement, and Ponzi schemes, he finally figured out that ripping off musicians is one profitable crime widely condoned in society.

Basically he won but lost anyway https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/833510769362825216

I watched quite a bit of the actual trial, which was livestreamed. The judge frequently pointed out that he knew his decision would be appealed, no matter what it was, and that it wasn't at all clear how to rectify the problem that the case presented. There were difficulties if it was sent either forward or back. Nobody wanted the case sent back to the district court, and there was no point him making a decision on everything and having his ruling tossed out in a higher court. What was clear throughout the case is that the New Zealand parliament had made its intention clear in the law that there was no such thing as criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. In effect, the judge made the only sensible decision he could: uphold the intention of parliament and the law, and yet leave the case in a state that would allow Dotcom and company to appeal.

As a Kiwi, I hope he wins the appeal! Everything the NZ government has done in regards to this entire case makes me embarrassed to be a kiwi.

> Everything the NZ government has done in regards to this entire case makes me embarrassed

Not a Kiwi, but I agree the NZ government has mishandled this situation from day 1.

I don't think Kim Dotcom should be extradited to the US. The way this was handled just reeks of judicial overreach by the Americans.

But, from everything that I've read, and what I've seen on his Twitter, Kim Dotcom is not someone I would want to be friends with. In general he seems to be a bit of a scumbag.

He likes the law, but only when it's in his favour. He even tried to finance a NZ political party, which failed spectacularly. [0]

If the Americans are intent to prove a point that he's a criminal, instead of trying to get him for copyright violations (which judges have repeatedly shown don't apply in NZ), they could always chose to hit him for money laundering which is a crime in NZ.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Dotcom.27s_involvem...

It makes sense that we want to see someone get a fair hearing in court, even if we didn't particularly like them. If I ever find myself in a similar position, I would want judicial fairness in my case too.

I am reminded of a quote from the film The Contender (2000)

"Principles only mean something when you stick to them when its inconvenient."

I echo your sentiment, however after being called into jury service in New Zealand, I was dismayed to discover first hand that the probability of a fair hearing in court is based on the degree to which you can afford a defence.

My perspective now is to avoid legal problems at nearly any cost, but to also advocate for understanding, respect--and when necessary--defence of the Law.

To give an example, I believe Trey Gowdy (the U.S. Representative) is a shining example of this approach and if you are interested I would recommend watching a few of his speeches on YouTube.

Ernesto Miranda, of "Miranda rights" fame, wasn't a particularly savoury character either.

You really demonstrate your adherence to principles and the rule of law when you apply them fairly to people you don't like.

>He likes the law, but only when it's in his favour.

Would you expect a rational actor to like the law when it's against them?

>He even tried to finance a NZ political party, which failed spectacularly.

How is trying to start a political party is controversial at all?

In the 2014 general election, the joint Internet Party and Mana Movement gained 1.42% of the nationwide party vote but failed to win any seats.

This isn't even a spectacular failure tbqh, many small parties don't get over the seat limit in their first few elections. In fact, I've only ever seen political parties do well in their first election when they were funded by extremely rich businessmen (meaning billions in net worth).

He can be a rational actor and still a moral hypocrite.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Kim. I think mega crossed the line by incentivising popular content. But also as a Kiwi I don't think that the NZ government acted within its own laws in this case. Especially when they raided Kim's mansion.

And even more so by handing over the hard drives to the FBI without proper authority or judicial review.

I recall getting a letter from megaupload a couple of years ago after I downloaded Firefox through their services "for free", asking me to pay some bullshit amount of money. Somehow they got their download link on top of all the others in Google. Did not pay because it was clearly a fraud. Many paid though. Later they busted the operation. In Germany that was. That's my share on Kim Dotcom. Filesharing is fine but the dude is a criminal trying to rationalize his deeds to evade punishment.

It would help if you could back your claims. Were the Mozilla servers down that you couldn't get it from an official source?

Years ago Firefox used to have a disclaimer of "Only use this software from official sources, you should never pay money for this software" kind of thing, because that practice happened all the time. Companies made money reselling Firefox to people who didn't know any better or weren't paying attention.

No idea if Megaupload was responsible or not, but it was certainly a popular fraud.

>I recall getting a letter

Prove it please.

They mailed you?

That letter would be a fine piece of evidence to back up this improbable story on the internet.

>Later they busted the operation. In Germany that was.

OOOOH, that looks like more evidence you could provide, maybe a link to a news story even if it is in German.

Note that he can't be extradited for copyright infringement, but they allowing it for fraud, which makes no sense.

Am I the only one to think he had it coming?

I mean, the guy publicly boasts to have made hundreds of millions of dollars ripping off the entertainment industry. The US wouldn't be so aggressive if the guy hadn't been in hiding and taunting them for years.

As far as I know, Sean Parker didn't go to jail over Napster...

No, you are not. But Schmitz's outcome is not going to be the same as Sean Parker's.

Sure, but that's only because he clearly violated a lot of laws and fled instead of facing trial.

I am surprised that most people here seem offended by NZ's decision. The guy's clearly a thief, he got a lot of money from people who wanted to watch TV shows, while he didn't make those shows.

If someone stole my stuff, fled to NZ and bragged about it online, I'd be pretty pissed too, and surely I'd like the guy to be extradited.

>>and fled instead of facing trial.

Where did he flee to? Megaupload was started when he lived in NZ, was shutdown when he lived in NZ, and as far as I am aware he still lives in NZ. So where you do you that he fled somewhere?

>I am surprised that most people here seem offended by NZ's decision.

That is because clearly you do not value due process

>The guy's clearly a thief

That is not clear to me, of course I also reject the very idea of "Intellectual privilege" and do not believe a download is the equivalent of theft.

Which by the way is the factual legal position as well, because when you infringe on copyright, you do not "steal" you infringe.

>If someone stole my stuff,

What did he steal, I have seen no complaints, or charges in regards to theft. Copyright infringement sure. But that is not theft

>fled to NZ

he did not flee to NZ,

Just a slight correction, he lived in Hong Kong when he founded Megaupload and moved to New Zealand later on. Pure speculation but I imagine he moved to Hong Kong to avoid German law after his past conviction there for insider trading.

The NZ government is in bed with America. After being caught red handed they attempted to change the law to justify what they did. The entire raid on him was illegal. Regardless of what he did he is an NZ Pernement Resident. He was meant to be protected by NZ laws and the government ignored those laws to bend over and take it from America.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com